Galaxy sized twist in time pulls violating particles back into line

I thought the CP violations were in response to a magnetic field, presumably this theory would depend on their orientation with respect to "galactic North" - do we have the necessary information to apply this filter to the original results?

Since we have the data from many experiments this should be easy to test. Even though it still boggles the mind that such global events like the galaxy's rotation should influence much stronger local factors to such a large degree.

I don't see how the rotation of our galaxy can account for the absence of anti-matter in the entire universe.

Yup, me neither. Though the news the other day was that the universe was born spinning, like my head when trying to comprehend that statement. Another thing, on dimensionless points that spin - where does the angular momentum go, after gravitational collapse?

This radical prediction is testable with the data that has already been collected at Cern and BaBar by looking for results that are skewed in the direction that the galaxy rotates.

Isn't there a childrens story about an elephant named BaBar?

Yup, me neither. Though the news the other day was that the universe was born spinning, like my head when trying to comprehend that statement. Another thing, on dimensionless points that spin - where does the angular momentum go, after gravitational collapse?

In to the immediate environment; tiny explosion.

I made that up though, so you probably don't want to take my word for it.

MMmmmm time for some breakfast ...

Yup, me neither. Though the news the other day was that the universe was born spinning, like my head when trying to comprehend that statement.

Out of interest, Bonkers, have you got a reference for that? (Re the universe, not your head! :) )

The fact that this idea can even be seriously proposed says something extraordinary about the sensitivity of our equipment, that we could have been misled by a side-effect of the rotation of the galaxy. Boggles the mind!

so, this implies we should see evidence of more antimatter in counterrotating galaxies?

the galactic frame dragging affect is significant enough to cause the different structures in each particle to experience different levels of time dilation

The different structures _in_ each meson? Do I get this right?
Galactic dynamics are influencing the weak interaction of subatomic particles?

"...an affect generated by a spinning massive body"

Is this why my girlfriend is always moody?

...where does the angular momentum go, after gravitational collapse?

It goes to infinity. According to the math at least. If there's a size cut off, say Planck volume, it won't go to infinity, but I'm not going there to check, o.k. :)

I don't see how the rotation of our galaxy can account for the absence of anti-matter in the entire universe.

It wouldn't. That would depend on the sum total of all spins not adding up to zero.

Facination stuff, really. This would imply that CP violations are local and that (as mentioned by Frajo) counter-rotating galaxies would have opposite CP violations. Baryogenesis would then have occured because of a predominance in the spin direction of any areas of local turbulance present during post inflation reheating (or whatever phase transition lead to particle creation). This would also imply that the universe has intrinsic spin as the sum total of local spins would not add up to zero.

Very interesting, especially in light of the fact that articles such as "The Universe May Have Been Born Spinning" were published hardly a week ago.

WOW! This is a stroke of true genius if it turns out to be correct!

Thinking on the implications of this a little more...if Hadley proves right, hell, this is Nobel class stuff. In spades. Not only whould he just a have provided us with a fundamental explanation for CP violations, but he whould have done the same for baryogenesis, shown that the universe has intrinsic spin and provided a beautiful example of how General Relativity and particle physics are entwined.

I mean, really, the mind boggles!

Yes Gawad, that was the answer I was looking for - there has to be a compressibility limit whether its the Planck volume or more, as long as its beneath the schwartzild (event horizon) radius. We can't be having infinities in a finite universe.
However, back to the point, if there is a frame dragging phenomenon going on, then the very (infinitely?) high frequency of a black hole should be a big signal should it not. OK if it only affects muon decay chirality then its a bit hard to do an AC analyis. I guess my point is that if there is a frame dragging effect then black holes would surely lose energy through it (normally as some power of teh angular frequency) and we would know this by now.

Personally, I do not have a problem with the concept. IIRC, it is the gravity of the galaxy that keeps the Sun orbiting the galactic center. Given that, it would seem to me that the effect of a galaxy's gravity on any object within the galaxy must be relatively great.

In my opinion, the article does a good enough job of explaining that it is an effect that is not normally noticed because it is pervasive. Think of the Earth's rotation on it's axis. The main clue that we have that the Earth is rotating on it's axis is the cycle between day and night. We never notice the rotation in other ways, such as falling over when we step onto the ground, because of the fact that everything is moving in the direction of the Earth's rotation at exactly the same velocity.

I have heard that due to the effects of multiple different influences like Earth's rotation, solar orbit, and galactic rotation, we are, in fact, all moving at something like one-million miles per hour, and we never notice.

wow. i bet you richard feynman would have enjoyed hearing this proposition.

We never notice the rotation in other ways, such as falling over when we step onto the ground, because of the fact that everything is moving in the direction of the Earth's rotation at exactly the same velocity.

Unless you wonder why the toilet bowl rotates in a certain direction depending on whether you're in the northern or southern hemisphere, which just miraculously matches up to this article.

The difference between an electron and a positron is spin direction, these differences in mechanical spin result in opposing charge. An electron is an inversed positron and vice versa.

A galactic spin generates a charge also (spin is kinetic, energy of motion). A galactic field governs all components within. The field generated by galactic spin aligns all particles within. Any particle going against the field (inverted particles, antimatter) will be annihilated or will be reverted. A galactic field prevails over stars, planets, molecular compounds, atoms, and subatomic particles (those discovered and those yet to be).

Antimatter is unable to survive for long within a galaxy, matter is unable to survive for long within an antigalaxy.

Unless you wonder why the toilet bowl rotates in a certain direction depending on whether you're in the northern or southern hemisphere, which just miraculously matches up to this article.

Mmmm, maybe not: http://www.snopes...olis.asp

I don't see how the rotation of our galaxy can account for the absence of anti-matter in the entire universe.

It wouldn't. That would depend on the sum total of all spins not adding up to zero.

Facination stuff, really. This would imply that CP violations are local and that (as mentioned by Frajo) counter-rotating galaxies would have opposite CP violations. Baryogenesis would then have occured because of a predominance in the spin direction of any areas of local turbulance present during post inflation reheating (or whatever phase transition lead to particle creation). This would also imply that the universe has intrinsic spin as the sum total of local spins would not add up to zero.

Very interesting, especially in light of the fact that articles such as "The Universe May Have Been Born Spinning" were published hardly a week ago.

Frame dragging doesn't depend on the "direction" of spin.

Spin is Spin,
or rather Rotation
is Rotation
regardless of orientation

We never notice the rotation in other ways, such as falling over when we step onto the ground, because of the fact that everything is moving in the direction of the Earth's rotation at exactly the same velocity.

Unless you wonder why the toilet bowl rotates in a certain direction depending on whether you're in the northern or southern hemisphere, which just miraculously matches up to this article.

Sorry, but this is a long busted myth. At that size (toilet, sink, etc.) the Coriolis effect is about as significant as Brownian motion. It's the water jets and the shape of a toilet that determine the direction of rotation of the flush.

Your point DOES apply to whether systems such as hurricanes, however.

Very interesting, especially in light of the fact that articles such as "The Universe May Have Been Born Spinning" were published hardly a week ago.

Frame dragging doesn't depend on the "direction" of spin.

Spin is Spin,
or rather Rotation
is Rotation
regardless of orientation

Uh...yeah...o.k. That's very astute, but umm...uh...where did I imply that frame dragging depends on the direction of rotation?

I guess my point is that if there is a frame dragging effect then black holes would surely lose energy through it (normally as some power of teh angular frequency) and we would know this by now.

Well, my understanding is that massive bodies do lose angular momentum as they radiate away gravity waves (assuming these exist). This loss of AM appears to be confirmed in neu...u.. and close binaries. The same would apply to black holes, though it might be harder to detect. However, the article isn't putting framedragging into question. If I understand you correctly though, yes the effect Hadley is suggesting produces local CP violation would be more pronounced in the vicinity of massive bodies such as black holes and neu... and n... FUCK!!! I can't say it anymore! I can't... I don't want to risk invoking the spirit of Nnnn... Revulsion by using the N word! Ah, wait! I've got it: Black Holes and Pulsars! There! Pulsars.

Don't fight it Gawad. He'll be here soon enough with his thank you thank you crap. But who knows, maybe he'll dodge this one since he doesn't have a clue about what they are really studying.

Regarding CP violation being more pronounced. I think the study is saying there is no CP violation. That the appearance of violation is caused by time dilation effects of frame dragging and if you properly account for them the CP violation goes away. Around the BH's and Pulsars what we might see is more different reactions caused by the time dilation of frame dragging. (Basically rewording what you said, getting rid of the CP violation-ness.)

Whether this becomes something in the grander scale of the BB is interesting. Maybe if we step back far enough from the universe and wait long enough it all balances out? I can't wrap my brain around what that would mean.

so, this implies we should see evidence of more antimatter in counterrotating galaxies?

What pray tell is a counter-rotating galaxy? A galaxy spins or it doesn't. The spin in the case of this article is measured by the rotation of its orbiting stuff. An elliptical has very little spin for example.

Please can you correct the spelling errors in the article. Thank you.

Mmmmmm...donuts

Regarding the previous story about the universe being born spinning, here is the link:

http://www.physor...mos.html

This is certainly an interesting idea.

As the Galaxy turns...
Soap TV.
Test.
Now.
Plz.
lol

nothing is still in our universe

@Gawad said (regarding Coriolis effect):

Your point DOES apply to weather systems such as hurricanes, however.

Not disputing you at all, but I must admit that while I "get" why the Coriolis effect can/does cause hurricanes to spiral, which seems pretty basic in terms of mechanics, I do not at all get how/why the Coriolis effect produces "logarithmic" ones.

I don't see how the rotation of our galaxy can account for the absence of anti-matter in the entire universe.

From the article:

"The universes earliest structures, perhaps the very earliest, may have had sufficient mass and spin to generate frame dragging affects that could have had a significant effect the distribution of matter and antimatter".

At that size ... the Coriolis effect is about as significant as Brownian motion...

Your point DOES apply to whether systems such as hurricanes, however.

A much better (if not entirely serious) example that I've heard about is ... the cat's tail! And the direction it wraps around the said cat when it sits.

I don't see how the rotation of our galaxy can account for the absence of anti-matter in the entire universe.

Which is why we need to do spectroscopic analysis of anti-matter and find out if H and anti-H have the same or different light/electromagnetic signatures..

The difference between an electron and a positron is spin direction, these differences in mechanical spin result in opposing charge. An electron is an inversed positron and vice versa.

Incorrect. Electrons have 2 spin states, but both are electrons.

Sorry, but this is a long busted myth.

I thought so too, but I did a far too fast check and some website said so, so I went with it. :| Clearly I should have spent more time on it. Apologies.

This article, and the one aforementioned, are a real trip to think about. Since reading about the Universe spinning theory, I have wondered about what massive object must be at the center. I am no physicist, but ...

moons orbiting around planets
planets orbiting stars
stars orbiting galaxies
galaxies orbiting ...

At last, some further recognition is being given to the effects of mechanical spin. Now if they would only give recognition that there is mechanical spin (not in name only) at the smallest levels.
I still subscribe to a B&F idea (burb & fluff) origin to local regions of the Universe. One half of the local region comes out spinning clockwise and is predominantly matter. The other half comes out spinning anti-clockwise and is predominantly anti-matter.
I also believe there is no way to know if we are in an expansion phase or a contraction phase. I believe that even if we were contracting we would still appear to be moving apart. Of course you have to believe in a starting place for the local universe for that to be true and not current theories that state that expansion began everywhere at once.
The new theory here at least gives more credence to the idea of spin relating to a predominantly matter or anti-matter local 'universe'. Just as I've been saying. So I'm all for this one.

I still subscribe to a B&F idea ...

...

I also believe there is no way to know...

...

believe that even if we were contracting we would still appear to be moving apart...

...

Of course you have to believe in a starting place for the local universe...

...

It never fails to amaze what people will believe without ever making an effort to check on their beliefs...

The artists concept is pretty impressive, helps visual learners understand. Also, those won't be "thank you's", they are "Kind Regards".

The difference between an electron and a positron is spin direction, these differences in mechanical spin result in opposing charge. An electron is an inversed positron and vice versa.

Incorrect. Electrons have 2 spin states, but both are electrons.

It is so much more incorrecter than that.

I am no physicist, but ...

moons orbiting around planets
planets orbiting stars
stars orbiting galaxies
galaxies orbiting ...

You're right. You are no physicist. But seriously, everything orbits around the center of mass of the system. With planets and moons the center of mass is usually somewhere inside or near the planet, so the moon effectively orbits around the planet. With stars in a galaxy, well, the galaxy is the stars. But somewhere near the center is usually a super massive black hole, so I guess you could say the stars orbit that. Regarding galaxies orbiting anything ... some center of mass somewhere. (Dwarf galaxies and a neighbor...)

I don't see, how the rotation of galaxies could account for the absence of anti-matter in the entire universe. In my theory the antimatter forms the dark matter clouds around massive bodies, because it's formed with particles, which are repulsing mutually (up to certain extent). Mainstream physics is schizophrenic: it seeks for antimatter, whereas it's finding some meaning for dark matter.

Oh, I'm not a physicist either.

Do you play one on TV? That's just as good.

IMO it could work in the following way: the galaxy represents a large space-time vortex and the particles of matter/antimatter small ones. When the chirality of both types of vortices corresponds mutually, the vortices are repulsive - otherwise they're repulsive in similar way, like the water surface vortex. I presume, on the same principle the charge forces are based.

Now there's a problem: the chirality of many galaxies differs, there are more right-hand galaxies, then those left-hand ones. Such galaxies should be therefore formed with antimatter, or they should at least exhibit some change in antimatter distribution around them, which is testable prediction. Anyway, from this theory follows, every stationary black hole should be surrounded with large amount of antimatter, because the above mechanism cannot apply there.

I'm not very sure, we could find some difference there, but if nothing else, it's the simple way, how to test at least something about it.

How can a "researches" not know how to write proper English?
This guy does not know the difference between effect and affect.
have a look in some sentences extracted from the text above:
"apparent gravitational affect on us than"
and
"and spin to generate frame dragging affects that could have had a significant effect"

In the last sentence the guy simply swapped the meanings of effect (noun) and affect (verb)
This is quite a concern when coming from a researcher to say the least.
"

]q}How can a "researches" not know how to write proper English?
Beacuse not all (or even most) researchers are native english speakers?

But your gripe is not with researchers but with science journalists. The above article - or any article on physorg for that matter - was not written by a scientist but by an english speaking journalist.

Howevere, that makes the error even more embarassing.

I believe we have invented a gravity engine if this theory proves correct, because if there is a parity violation between antimatter and matter then we would be left with a specific potential energy greater than what we started with although an almost insignificant amount.

I suppose this energy would come from an effect of gravitational momentum. So, probably not directly retrieving energy from gravity but just an effect of gravity on matter and antimatter.

I already believed that spin was the cause of our matter dominated universe and now some scientists are suggesting it. Bet you didn't think of anything like that antialias. Are they immediately wrong too? I think that one day science will eventually 'discover' that things are a lot less complicated than our science buddies are all trying to make it: Four forces, dark matter, dark energy, strings, space-time, standard model with umpty particles (many virtual) that don't explain anything... Just as once upon a time it was discovered that atoms were a simpler science than we originally thought; I think also that these things are simpler than all this invented multifariousness.

I already believed that spin was the cause of our matter dominated universe and now some scientists are suggesting it. Bet you didn't think of anything like that antialias.

What you believe or don't believe really doesn't matter to anyone, does it?
Unless you are actually involved in showing whether a certain theory is true or not (such as making suggestions as to *why* the theory should hold *and* presenting a plan to test those theories) such statements are extremely worthless.

Just as once upon a time it was discovered that atoms were a simpler science than we originally thought;

Atoms are teeenzy bit more complicated that the earth/fire/water/air theory that predated them.

earth/fire/water/air

Solid/plasma/liquid/gas

The old theory is still there.

BEC is not included as:
1. It doesn't exist (absolute 0 is non-existent)
2. Within plasma gas liquid and solids electromagnetic energy causes interplay (like crystallization in solids),

BEC's are the lack of energy, zero energy means zero interaction. If we bring the level of energy to zero (hypothetically speaking) mass becomes zero. (e=mc^2). BEC's don't exist.

Only 4 states of matter exist, therefore the old theory is true.

so, this implies we should see evidence of more antimatter in counterrotating galaxies?

LOL, counter-rotating? You mean if you look at another galaxy from the north pole it's counter-rotating? What if you look at it from the south pole?

The articles theory sounds very plausible. I've always felt the implications of Michaelson-Morley have not been fully understood. I just wonder why this was even proposed without examining the data when its predictions can be tested so easily.

LOL, counter-rotating?

You apparently missed another article....;-)

http://www.physor...mos.html

The true nature of skepticim is the lack of information.

It is so much more incorrecter than that.

To correct, the irony...

Who knows when a comment will lead to something alias. I've said the above about the importance of spin and matter in forums and who's to say it hasn't made someone else think. It's not past most scientists not to give credit where due unless they want to flatter somebody important or to refer someone elevated to give credence to their derivative theory. Of course ideas do occur in parallel so maybe there is zero connection to my ideas and it was just a fluke co-incidence as has occurred in history many times. But, someone somewhere has to begin the ball rolling. I'm guessing that won't be you.
I think that spin plays a lot more importance in our physics than our scientists will give it credit. They attribute spin to particles and then say its just a name; not really spin.
You talk about fire-earth-air-water. I think a lot of our current thinking is still stuck in a quagmire of antique ideas from which it will not elevate itself. Wake up.

The picture shows the gravity vortex, not the spin frame dragging. I have to admit that frame dragging is quite hard to picture, and is an additional azimuthal effect to radially inward gravity. However, as the article makes clear, it is the time effects that are central. Feynman taught that antiparticles are time reversed particles, and in CPT symmetry one can just as easily say they are CP reversed. A violation of T symmetry is the same as a violation of CP symmetry. The key to understanding this really fabulous insight is that time symmetry is broken under rotation and the faster the rotation the worse the break. (which leads directly to the insight that there is a cosmic rotational limit at which time is completely severed. I predict the BB spun at this limit.) Thus it is azimuthal processes (occurring over time) under spin that exhibit CP violations.

Just as once upon a time it was discovered that atoms were a simpler science than we originally thought;

Atoms are teeenzy bit more complicated that the earth/fire/water/air theory that predated them.

In the ancient times this kind of reasoning was pure speculation as it wasn't possible to confirm or falsify the assumptions.

The switch from the earth/fire/water/air model to the atomistic model(s) (of Leucippos and Democritos) was not paradigmatic but a consequent abstraction from empirically observable (=natural) constituents of everything to not directly observable, but more fundamental constituents of even the natural elements.

These models exemplify two historical stages of rational thinking; they are not antagonistic.

sorry bbharim but Feynman simply stuck a negative sign where a positive sign was. It's not valid math. I personally don't believe there is just a single electron that is zipping backward and forward through time for eternity as suggested by or because of Feynman (I can't remember which); but what I believe doesn't matter... alack.

I think a lot of our current thinking is still stuck in a quagmire of antique ideas from which it will not elevate itself.

Well, as someone who has been a scientist I know how science works. It's dilligent work and you don't just go off and pose a wild theory _without_ any indication that there might be something to it and then see if it pans out.

I think that spin plays a lot more importance in our physics than our scientists will give it credit.

How so? Where does spin affect things scientists have overlooked. How would you design a test to verify your claim? Or is this again just an "I believe..." statement. If so then that's not much different than saying "I believe that god did it".

As for spin: be careful. Quantummechanical spin is not the same as classical (mechanical) spin - even though they have the same units. The spin of galaxies and the spin of elementary particles are two different critters.

In the classical sense a liar is someone who doesn't tell the truth. In the modern sense a liar is someone who omits the truth and replaces it with a fabricated tale.

Spin is spin.

Composite particles travel abound a common centre of mass. [classical].

Elementary particles travel abound their own centre of mass. [modernized (as of this moment) qm]

These are only different to those who try to draw the distinction. (it's not like cosmology and particle physics belong to the same physical world or anything, right? <- that's sarcasm if it evades you)

And while on the elementary particle' subject: what makes you believe that at higher energy levels the particles we call elementary can't be divided further still?

As for CPT reversal: antimatter has been captured and witnessed in our time. If antimatters time flows opposite to ours then antimatter could never be witnessed. Antimatter would evolve in reverse, which it does not. There is a difference between decay (which antimatter does quickly in a matter dominated world) and an alternate time path. Antimatter follows the same time axis as matter, only charge differs (right&left hand rules).

What makes you say there are no indications alias. What indications did the above people use to propose there theory; what indications did I use. I see little difference. There are plenty of indications that today's science is ignoring plenty of evidence before its eyes.
Just look at heat. Molecules bouncing faster against each other mean that they are hotter. But molecules bouncing against each other is also how sound transfers. Yet sound will travel from cold to hot and heat travels from hot to cold. Sound will not disperse radiation whereas a hot body will. So we are told the means are the same but that they are different. What a load of nonsense.
The idea of hot bodies being made of faster bouncing molecules is old science now. We are told that injected emr making it hotter simply disappears. Nonsense. But it is important to science to maintain this belief because it is a stack of cards. Pull out one card and things begin to fall. I don't believe in emr de-existing.

What indications did the above people use to propose there theory; what indications did I use.

You had no indication. You just said you already 'believed' this before they came up with their indication (which is, as yet, unproven. But at least it is testable).

There are plenty of indications that today's science is ignoring plenty of evidence before its eyes.

Ignoring what? Could you give an example? And please differentiate between "ignoring" and "haven't found the time nor the money to go look at it".

Yet sound will travel from cold to hot and heat travels from hot to cold. Sound will not disperse radiation whereas a hot body will. So we are told the means are the same but that they are different. What a load of nonsense.

Yes. You are saying a lot of nonsense. Could you rephrase that so it makes sense? Sound is pressure waves. Heat is electromagnetic waves. Two entirley different (and mostly unrelated) things.

frame dragging affect

Any level of editing or proofing should detect that this should read "frame dragging effect". Very irritating.

In the classical sense a liar is someone who doesn't tell the truth.

That's not classical; it's naive.
Classical is the question whether someone who says "I'm a liar" is a liar.

In the modern sense a liar is someone who omits the truth and replaces it with a fabricated tale.

That is naive, too.
Modern lying is promoting killers while preaching peace.

sorry ggg but nature doesn't care what you believe
it sure explains indistinguishability if there is only 1 tron. but whether there is 1 or kazillion makes no difference to other considerations. Under CPT symmetry, to turn a particle into an antiparticle, CPT flips. Seems that there are 2 ways to accomplish this, equivalent. Feynman liked T flip. Most cannot understand this, and prefer CP flip. Since the other 4 choices don't do it (I am not sure why), that little minus you so denigrated is pretty fundamental.

Sorry bbharim, Nature doesn't care what mankind tries to tell it it is. If i have an equation and say y = x plus 1 as being nature I can not simply go in, as Feynman did, and say that y = x minus 1 is also nature. Math don't work that way.

I was waiting for you to provide a proposition, though nicely veiled, that I was a liar alias. Better to go with that than that anyone outside your lot should be able to think.
We both know 'heat' gets a lot more abstract description by science than you've just given it alias. No scientist will directly call emr 'heat'.

Why do cranks feel the need to constantly mention giants of science? Food for thought.

Modern lying is promoting killers while preaching peace.

Lol. So true of modern times. Sadly, you couldn't be more correct. Bringing peace by force. Giving freedom while taking resources. These practices are not sustainable though, more and more people are seeing what you see as time passes by. The Internet is an excellent tool. Unfortunately censorship is catching up with free speech. China pulls the curtain (censors the Internet) for its residents. When those in power feel that power slipping they tighten their hold. Divide and conquer. The Internet is a tool serving against division. It's too bad that censorship logarithms are so easy to write. Type in the word that the program is set to pick up on and your message is pulled and your access is abrupted.

Why do scientists feel the urge to call anybody that questions them a crank? Must be their intellectual prowess at argument at work again.

Why do scientists feel the urge to call anybody that questions them a crank? Must be their intellectual prowess at argument at work again.

A crank is what a crank does: a disparaging term for a person who holds an unorthodox opinion.

It is as simple as that.

Why do scientists feel the urge to call anybody that questions them a crank? Must be their intellectual prowess at argument at work again.

The term crank does tend to get overused on this site.

But that has a lot to do with the unusual number and variety of true cranks that visit and comment on this site. Zephyr/rawa1/Callippo being a prime example. Since your "theory" is new to me and you think -400C is an achievable temperature (see article "What keeps Earth cooking") I'll just put you in the ignorant layman philosopher category instead of labeling you a true crank.

A crank is what a crank does: a disparaging term for a person who holds an unorthodox opinion.

It is as simple as that.

It's far from being that simple, as you know.

Having unorthodox views while working within the scientific framework is to be encouraged and is one of the ways great leaps in knowledge can come about. But clinging to unorthodox views which either have no scientific basis or have already been debunked, is the definition of crank.

Cool. Thanks Pyle. That's certainly okay by me. I certainly don't go proposing strange things (like string theory) or some of the weird things that some 'inventive' laypeople seem to come up with that even make my head shake. But there do seem to be basic gaps that just go ignored. For example electrons going over a magnetic pole don't 'attract' towards the pole or 'repel' away from the pole. They go left or right depending upon which pole it is. Science doesn't seem to explain why this should be so. I hold that it is due to the spin of the electron. Spin tends to make things go in a different direction than we expect them to go if they aren't spinning. Is that not logical? Apparently not for science...

I hold that it is due to the spin of the electron. Spin tends to make things go in a different direction than we expect them to go if they aren't spinning. Is that not logical?

.
Not at all.

Science doesn't seem to explain why this should be so.

http://hyperphysi...ame.html
http://www.natsci...electron

Thanks for that Deesky. I'll have a read through it.

"I think and think for months and years. Ninety-nine times, the conclusion is false. The hundredth time I am right."

It's far from being that simple, as you know.

"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler."

I'm not really sure that it is more complex than that, but correct me if I'm wrong:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

Clinging to unorthodox views which...have already been debunked is the definition of a crank.

"Insanity: doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results."

I don't think your definition of a crank is quite right, but hey, who am I to judge?

The problem with quoting Einstein is: He then went on and did the math on his stuff to see if it pans out. Then he worked in concert with other scientists to see whether what he envisioned matched reality.

While you, on tghe otherhand, just go: "I believe this because it sounds cool".

One is a scientist. The other is a crank.

But seriously: Who are you to judge?

That's rather presumptive, but hey, who am I?

wait a minute- how do they decide whether a galaxy is moving clockwise or counter-clockwise? there's an obvious difference? isn't it relative to which side of the galaxy you consider to be 'up'? seems arbitrary.

Absolutely arbitrary depending on the location/perspective of the observer. However, from anywhere one would expect a balance in handedness if the universe isn't spinning (well, something like that, but not that exactly). Anyway, if there is a preference for one handedness over another then one possible reason could be a spinning universe.