> Dale,
>
> 
>
> I previously thought you have some idea of Physics, but now I feel you
> have no idea at all, because you don’t even know about what are now
> regarded the established facts. And you have answered the questions so
> simplistically, as if there is absolutely nothing in them, though
> questions like these and many other questions have been haunting
> theoretical physicists for a long time. You don’t even seem to know
> that almost all of thousands of the bodies of the universe (planets,
> satellites, asteroids, meteors, etc) move in the same plane and in the
> same direction. You also seem to be unaware that Big Bang cosmology
> begins from singularity, and I am not even sure you understand what
> singularity is all about. Even Hawking has discussed the subject of
> the sameness of the laws of the universe and has clearly shown this as
> a very difficult question to answer.
>
> And now already there are many physicists and mathematicians trying to
> see the effects of the possibility of a rotating universe. Here are a
> few examples. Some website links are also given below. (As I feel it
> is absolutely wastage of my time and that of all others involved in
> this date, I feel I shall not take any more part in this debate.> 
>
> *. F. Panov^1 *
>
> (1) >
>
> Permsk State University, USSR
>
> *Abstract  *We consider different interpretations of the rotation of
> the metagalaxy and cosmological models of the *universe with
> rotation*. The Muradyan formula for the angular momentum of the
> metagalaxy is obtained, starting from the hierarchic concept of
> reality. It is established that the angular velocities of rotation of
> matter in the Gedel and Ozsvath-Schücking models of the universe have
> the same order 10^–11 rad/year. Possible local effects of a *rotating
> universe* are discussed.
>
> Translated from Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii, Fizika, No. 1, p. 22–25, January, 1985. 
>
>
>   "Big Spin" Model of Gravity
>
> /by Sergey Ivanenko
> Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2003
> Last updated: Saturday, February 25, 2006
> PACS 04.50.+h – Alternative theories of gravity /
>
> /(formerly "//Inertial Theory of Gravity/
> <http://www.antigravity.org/InertialTheoryOfGravity.html>/ ", modified)/
>
> /This is an attempt to explain fundamental reasons for gravity, going
> beyond its relativistic definition as spacetime curvature. The “Big
> Spin” model suggests that gravity is a result of rotation of the
> Universe’s hypersphere (not a Gödel's rotation). It assumes that space
> possesses elastic properties and Newton’s law of inertia holds true
> for higher dimension(s). This model also suggests that space
> curvature, along with the “hyper-” rotation of the Universe, replaces
> relativistic concept of spacetime curvature, providing similar
> quantitative results.   /
>
>
>       Motivation
>
> Although General Relativity is a widely accepted theory of gravity
> with some aspects of it proved experimentally, it serves as a
> mathematical model, rather than physical explanation of a phenomena
> that can be matched with an intuitive analogy from everyday life.
> There are also views that consider treatment of time in Relativity
> philosophically questionable (admittedly, it is inevitable for such a
> general concept). The ultimate challenge the author sees is to present
> a rather simple explanation of gravity, which would still agree with
> the experiments. Here is an attempt to provide such a model.
>
>
>       Higher Dimensions, Moving Universe, the Law of Inertia
>
> It is accepted to think of our Universe as a multi-dimensional object.
> For purposes of this paper, we will narrow our choices to 4D sphere
> (or “hypersphere”), without considering other possible shapes. I
> suggest to treat the Universe as an elastic shell (perhaps I should
> say “hypershell”). We can think of objects of the Universe as
> “confined” within it, that is being unable to leave the hypershell,
> but still free to move along it. Although there are ways to speculate
> about the fine structure of the objects, we will not discuss it in
> this paper.
> I believe it will be a valid assumption that, besides the “Big Bang”
> expansion, the Universe can also have some other kinds of movement.
> All of them (including expansion) should be considered with respect to
> higher dimensions. As it will be shown later, we are particularly
> interested in the possible rotation of the Universe. I should stress
> that rotation of a hypersphere is quite different from the rotations
> we see in everyday life.
> First, we are going to consider a couple of scenarios of a moving
> universe. Let's assume that if a universe moves in */n > 3/*
> dimensions along the straight line and with constant speed, it will
> not affect objects in the universe (generalizing Newton's law of
> inertia). I would also suggest that if a universe moves with some
> acceleration, but accelerates in a direction orthogonal to itself,
> objects in the universe will not “perceive” this acceleration.
> Let's look at the lower-dimension analogy.
>
>
> *Fig.1*
>
> Suppose that we have a flat two-dimensional universe (Fig.1), which
> moves with acceleration in a direction perpendicular to it (projection
> of the vector on the universe's plane is zero). In this case flat
> “apple” behaves as there is no acceleration at all (some extra details
> on that in the next chapter).
>
>
> *Fig.2*
>
> In the next example (Fig.2) the same universe moves with acceleration
> oriented in some other (non-perpendicular) direction. Now projection
> of the acceleration on the universe's plane is non-zero (vector ).
> This results in apparent movement of the “apple” with acceleration in
> respect to the universe.
>
>
>       Curved Space and Effects Caused by It
>
> Let us forget for a moment about spacetime curvature of General
> Relativity. If, as suggested earlier, Universe's “hypershell”
> possesses elastic properties, than in case of accelerated motion we
> could expect Universe's objects to bend space (as much as word “bend”
> applies to four dimensions). It would be somewhat similar to what
> would happen to a sheet of fabric, if it had a flat massive object on
> it and moved with acceleration oriented perpendicularly to the surface
> of the fabric.
> Again, let us look at our two-dimensional analogy of the Universe.
>
>
> *Fig.3*
>
> A flat universe moves along the perpendicular to it with acceleration
> . It causes massive objects to “bend” the universe in the direction
> opposite to the vector of acceleration.
> We will discuss possible reasons for the Universe's acceleration a bit
> later, now we will take a closer look at what happens in vicinity of
> the massive bodies, where space is curved.
>
>
> *Fig.4*
>
> We're taking step forward from our simplified view on Fig.1. Here
> (Fig.4), we take space bending into account. In vicinity of a massive
> body (big “apple”) projection of the acceleration vector on the
> surface is non-zero, which causes small objects “slide” towards the
> massive ones (here we do not consider space bending caused by the
> small objects themselves and effects caused by that).
>
>
>       “Hyper-” rotation of the Universe (the “Big Spin”)
>
> Now, what could cause our Universe to constantly accelerate? The
> easiest way to get a constant acceleration is to use rotational
> motion. In our case, we should think of rotation that provides same
> acceleration for all points of the hypersphere. Essentially, we want
> for every point of the hypersphere the following condition to be
> satisfied:
>
> Where */r/* is a vector from the center of the hyperspehere to some
> point of the hypersphere and k is a constant. As well, perhaps, we
> want it to be a rigid rotation. In 4D space with coordinates
> */(x,y,z,w)/* it seems like simultaneous rotation in two planes, for
> instance */(x, y)/* and */(z, w)/*, will provide the desired result.
> Possibly, we could as well think of other kinds of rotation, perhaps
> less intuitive ones (so far we deal with more than three dimensions).
>
>
>       Gravity as a Result of Rotation of the Universe
>
> Let us formulate the above considerations in a single statement (the
> “Big Spin” model of gravity):
> Our Universe is a four-dimensional rotating hypersphere. The rotation
> creates a centripetal acceleration which is generally orthogonal to
> the Universe's space in every point and not perceived by the objects
> of the Universe. However, the centripetal acceleration, along with the
> elastic reaction of the space, causes curving of the space in vicinity
> of massive bodies. As a result, in the curved areas the acceleration
> is not orthogonal to the space, which appears to the Universe's
> objects as gravity.
>
>
>       Space Curvature vs. Spacetime Curvature
>
> Now, you ask, what about time? According to General Relativity, time
> is the part of the “spacetime curvature” that is responsible for
> everyday gravity the most. So far time curvature in GR attributes to
> acceleration, I'm suggesting that time curvature is just a
> reinterpretation of the centripetal acceleration, varying in vicinity
> of massive bodies. Note that we still have “space curvature” part of
> GR untouched, which will continue to explain light bending, etc.> 
>
> *Fig. 5 Cross section of a two-dimensional universe. *
>
> Take a look at Fig. 5. It deals with lower dimensional analogy and
> shows a cross section of a 2D universe, picturing our “sliding” model
> of gravity (it uses /centrifugal force/ instead of /centripetal
> accelleration/, for convenience). We will use this picture as a helper
> reference for considering a case of a 3D spherical symmetric mass
> (/Massive body/). In a polar coordinate system, external to the
> Universe, we have
>
>
> where
>
> Parameter */A/* defined by mass of the body, elastic properties of the
> Universe and parameters of the Universe's rotation.
>
> Acceleration caused by the rotation:
>
> and can be thought of (if really necessary) as a kind of a “curved time”
>
>
>       Further Considerations
>
> It is very attractive to use rotation for explaining gravity, because
> rotation is a very natural form of motion in the Universe. It is in a
> way “absolute” and self sufficient - no need for an outside observer
> or inertial coordinate system. This model also keeps gravitational and
> inertial masses equal. It also shows why gravity is so weak comparing
> to the other forces.
> Another speculation that the “Big Spin” model of gravity can lead us
> to is a possible explanation of accelerating expansion of the Universe
> without a need for “dark energy” (or one can say Universe's rotation
> /is/ the “dark energy”).
> Admittedly, getting rid of time component of spacetime, we need to
> suggest an alternative explanation for the effects described by
> Special Relativity. Although such a discussion goes beyond this paper,
> perhaps revision of the Michelson-Morley experiment can be
> instrumental in such effort.
> See also: considerations on Space Curvature
> <http://www.antigravity.org/SpaceCurvature.html>
>
> http://www.antigravity.org/BigSpinModelOfGravity.html>
> 
>
> *Abstract  *The effect of the *global rotation of the universe* on the
> formation of galaxies is investigated. It is found that the global
> rotation provides a natural origin for the rotation of galaxies, and
> the morphology of the objects formed from gravitational instability in
> a rotating and expanding universe depends on the amplitude of the
> density fluctuation, different values of the amplitude of the
> fluctuation lead to the formation of elliptical galaxies, spiral
> galaxies, and walls. The global rotation gives a natural explanation
> of the empirical relation between the angular momentum and mass of
> galaxies: J M^5/3 . The present angular velocity of the universe is
> estimated at 10^-13 rad yr^-1 .
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/j4v674088n761667/> 
>
> *The rotating universe*
>
> *Rotation or vorticity:
> *As the light and energy orbit the expanding cosmos, it takes longer
> to reach a reference point against the background universe. Newton
> would call this reference point absolute space. Mach would call it the
> fixed stars. The cosmos, galaxy and solar system all rotate, with
> respect to that which is outside our cosmic dynamic unit. If the
> background universe has features which are close enough, and these
> features are not black holes, then they may be visible through the
> intense orbiting energy and light around the cosmos. Seeing through
> this orbital energy seems possible since stars are visible near the
> sun during an eclipse as starlight perpendicular to the huge energy
> flow from the sun. We might be seeing such features in the Hubble
> telescope deep field photographs. It would not be remarkable if the
> background universe looks the same as it does within our dynamic unit
> cosmos.
> The *angular velocity = tangent velocity/radius= vt/r = c/(c*age) =
> 1/age* in radians/second or Hubble's constant as a rotation rate or
> *fr*c/(fr*c*age) = 1/age*
> The *rate of change of the angle of rotation is the angular velocity.*
> The *rate of change of the angle of rotation is 1/age.*
> The *rate of change of the ln(age) is 1/age.*
> The *angle of rotation = ln(age)* = the natural logarithm of the age =
> ln(4.73E17) = 40.7 radians.
> The base of the natural logarithms is e.
> *e^(angle of rotation) = e^40.7 = 4.73E17 = age*
> *ln(age*2) = ln(age) + ln(2).* Each time the cosmos doubles in age or
> size the angle of rotation of the cosmos increases by the *ln(2) =
> .693 radians = 39.7 degrees
> *We are currently at 40.7 radians so *40.7 /(2*pi) = 6.5 revolutions*
> might have been made by the orbiting light and energy in the age of
> the cosmos. The last revolution started when the cosmos was, *e^(40.7
> - 6.28) = 8.88E14_s = 28.1 million years old. *
> The current revolution will end, *e^(40.7 + 6.28) = 2.53E20_s =
> 8.017E12_years = 8017 billion years.* The slowly stirring cosmos is
> slowing down.
> The *rate of change of the angular velocity (1/age) is the angular
> acceleration.
> angular acceleration = -(1/age^2 ) = -4.46E-36_1/s^2 .* This is the
> second derivative of the angle of rotation. This very small rate that
> the cosmos is decelerating in its rotation is necessary for the
> equilibrium between rotation and expansion.
> We are rotating with the cosmos. Everything has the same universal
> angular velocity, (1/age), as a component of their local angular
> velocity, as we will see in our galaxy. The cosmos rotated faster when
> it was younger. This differential rotation might be detected but the
> angular acceleration is profoundly slow at (1/age^2 ).
> *Inertial accelerations:
> *To calculate the path of expansion of a particle we need the vector
> sum of three accelerations; the centrifugal, tangent and coriolis.
> These are components of the so called fictitious forces which are more
> properly called forces due to inertia. They are certainly not
> fictitious if you take the Machian view
> <http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/%7Esuchii/mach.pr.html> that inertia is
> the acceleration dependant gravitational force exerted by the rest of
> the cosmos. See the article on Inertial Inductance
> <http://blackholeformulas.com/files/InertialInductance.html>.
> *Centrifugal acceleration
> *The centrifugal and gravitational forces are equal. m*c^2 /r equals
> the centrifugal force and c^2 /r is the acceleration felt by light or
> energy in orbit at the perimeter of the cosmos.
> *c^2 /r = c^2 /(c*age) = c/age = 6.33E-10_m/s^2 * or *c^2 *fr^2
> /(c*age*fr) = fr*c/age* if fr is less than one
> *Tangent acceleration:
> *We can calculate the tangent acceleration using the torque formula.
> *moment of inertia*angular acceleration = force*radius.
> m*r^2 *angular acceleration = m*a*r.
> a = r *angular acceleration = tangent acceleration
> a = c*age *(1/age^2 ) = c/age,* or
> *a = fr*c/age* if fr is less than one
> The direction of deceleration is opposite of rotation. The tangent
> acceleration can also be calculated from velocity dependent inertial
> induction with the same result.
> *Coriolis acceleration:
> *Inertia will cause an outward directed mass, on a rotating platform,
> to lag behind in a direction opposite to the rotation. This is the
> reaction. The action which is the coriolis acceleration is in the
> direction of the rotation. A person in an accelerating car is pushed
> back against the seat. This is a reaction to the acceleration. The
> acceleration is in the direction of the velocity. The reaction is in
> the direction opposite the velocity.
> *2 *angular velocity *vr = coriolis acceleration*
> vr is the radial velocity which at the perimeter is c.
> *2*c/age = coriolis acceleration* or
> *fr*2*c/age* if fr is less than one
>
> *Spirals:
> *Now that we have calculated the inertial accelerations, we can look
> at the way the cosmos expands. We have the *centrifugal acceleration
> of c/age,* directed radially out. We have the *coriolis acceleration
> of 2*c/age,* in the direction of rotation, and the *deceleration of
> c/age,* in the direction opposite of rotation. The resultant of these
> accelerations, is 45 degrees between the direction of rotation and the
> outward directed radius. It has a value of, *2^1/2 *c/age =
> 8.96E-10_m/s^2 .* A particle moving in this way traces out a
> logarithmic spiral. We have seen that the
> *angle of rotation = ln(age).* This can be written as
> *age = e^(angle of rotation) .* Now
> *r = c*age,* can be written as
> *r = c*e^(angle of rotation) .* This is the equation of a logarithmic
> spiral. It is no coincidence that many galaxies have a spiral shape.
> Indeed, it is not that space expands, but that the distance between
> orbiting masses increases as they spiral out, apart from each other,
> as the cosmos expands and slows in its rotation. The tangent velocity
> of the stars orbiting in galaxies, stays the same as the galaxies
> expand and the orbital periods increase. Any velocity change would
> require force and energy which are absent.
> *Torque of a spinning black hole:
> moment of inertia *angular acceleration = torque
> M *r^2 *angular acceleration =
> M *vr^2 *age^2 *angular acceleration, *but
> *vr/c = M/Mc, *so *vr^2 = c^2 *M^2 /Mc^2 , *therefore
> *M *c^2 *M^2 /Mc^2 *age^2 *angular acceleration =
> M^3 *c^2 /Mc^2 *age^2 *angular acceleration = torque.*
> If the mass of the black hole is, M = Mc, the mass of the cosmos, then
> *Mc *c^2 *age^2 *(1/age^2 ) = Mc *c^2 *
> We see that the age^2 , in the square of the radius, in the moment of
> inertia, increases at the same rate the angular acceleration 1/(age^2
> ) decreases so that the age^2 in each cancels and the energy stays
> constant. We will see the same thing in the torque of a spinning galaxy.
> *The dynamics of the cosmos:*
> The radius of the cosmos increases while the rotation of the cosmos
> slows down, and with it all the blackholes and galaxies, without a
> change in energy or use of power, always in dynamic equilibrium.
> Orbits spiral out as the gravitational force decreases with the age of
> the cosmos.
>
> http://blackholeformulas.com/files/Rotation.html>
>
>   Four-dimensional Rotation of the Universe.
>   <http://forum.soft32.com/mac/dimensional-Rotation-Universe-ftopict110528.html>
>
> http://forum.soft32.com/mac/dimensional-Rotation-Universe-ftopict110528.html