101–110 of 318 posts
What the original article explains, is that this is relative to our observer point of view (obviously).
It's still very interesting, since, disregarding any potential interaction in our local group, randomness was expected and we should see around 50/50 rotating either way unless one of the explanations came into play.
Potentially a very dumb question, but seeing the difference between cyclones and hurricane on earth (clock-wise, anti-clock-wise)... Does it mean that we are, potentially, on one of two poles(?) of the observable universe, if we're observing most galaxies around us rotating a certain way?
(But the same is true for someone sitting on another planet).
Potentially a very dumb question, but seeing the difference between cyclones and hurricane on earth (clock-wise, anti-clock-wise)... Does it mean that we are, potentially, on one of two poles(?) of the observable universe, if we're observing most galaxies around us rotating a certain way?
We're equidistant from the edge of the observable universe in all directions. One would think that puts us at the center. (But the same is true for someone sitting on another planet).
But rotation direction depends on the observer. If i see galaxy spinning clockwise, this means someone observing galaxy from behind it sees it rotating counter clockwise. So are we just located so in the universe that we see 2/3 spinning clockwise and another counter?
I wonder if it’s already April’s Fools Day in some parts of the world. The hands of a clock move clockwise if seen from the front, but counterclockwise if seen from the back.
I can’t think of any that would make much sense as top/bottom would mean that there needs to be a relative universal point to reference and as far as I know, that doesn’t exist.
Seems like we've got a few of these imbalances now where you'd expect 50:50 but instead it's skewed to one side where nature had a different idea Matter-antimatter ratio Left vs right handed molecules Now galaxy spin directions Maybe there are others I missed too
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the matter-antimatter ratio, you would not expect 50:50, or would you? Because 50:50 would be a highly unstable system? In any case, you would expect that unstable states would be highly unlikely, and it would converge into a stable state. I'm not sure about the other examples. But maybe it's a similar reason that it is not a 50:50 ratio?
A 50/50 matter/anti-matter system could still house stable local pockets of mostly matter or anti-matter. The problem is, from what I understand, that the universe seems to have sprung into existence with way more matter than anti-matter, and we don't know why.
Everybody here is talking about the black hole hypothesis, but to me it seems that the other explanation, a wrong assumption about the rotation of our own galaxy, is more likely: because it could explain 2 other problems as well. > "The re-calibration of distance measurements can also explain several other unsolved questions in cosmology such as the differences in the expansion rates of the universe and the large gal…
I don't understand how the 1e-16 Hz rotation of the Milky Way affects how we perceive other spiral galaxies' orientations.