The asymmetric observation can be due to the aberration of our own movement in respect of observable galaxies. Our Solar system is rotating and we can see longer the same side of galaxies that are rotating perpendicularly in opposite direction with us. Because of the Milky Way the part of the galaxies are hidden and hence there can be a statistical distortion...

The rotation of the observed universe is under reasonable doubt.

Asymmetry is related to the fact that galaxies left more than rigt. This is an objective fact, which is not connected and does not depend on the rotation of the solar system (and also our galaxy).

Dear Dr. Timkov,

According to the analysis of the CMB field reported in the paper: How Isotropic is the Universe?

Daniela Saadeh, Stephen M. Feeney, Andrew Pontzen, Hiranya V. Peiris, and Jason D. McEwen Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 131302 – Published 21 September 2016

It is not likely that there the universe is rotating around a single axis.

If you do not have access to Phys. Rev. Let. the general summary of the findings is presented at

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-scientists-universe.html

I hope that the above experimental evidence is useful.

With best regards,

Janusz

Thank you for the link. I know this work (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.07178.pdf).

The observed Universe performs one revolution for 90.6 billion years (for Ho = 67.8 (km^1s^-1)/Mpc)). Since the Big Bang, the observable Universe has made a turn of about 57 degrees. Can we detect traces of this turn (respectively, not isotropy of the Universe) in the CMB with modern instruments? Given the scale factor - no. CMB is not a representative object of research for an unambiguous answer to the question whether our Universe is isotropic or not. To answer this fundamental question, it is necessary to involve all modern tools. At the same time, the isotropy test based on other options-for example, as in this case-the asymmetry among spiral galaxies, says that our universe is not isotropic.

Best regards, V. Timkov.

VT: Can we detect traces of this turn (respectively, not isotropy of the Universe) in the CMB with modern instruments?

I believe it is expected that rotation would have some indications in the polarisation of the CMB but as the problems with BICEP2 showed, measuring that is difficult, not so much due to the current instruments but because of the contamination from dust within our galaxy.

I agree with you: the most suitable tool for finding traces of rotation in CMB is polarization. The reason: polarization is the least affected by the scale factor. The reference angle in the search for the angles of polarization can be the integral angle of the action of the Cariolis force - it is 9.79 degrees.

Turning 57 degrees it is 2.2 × 10 ^ -11 rad / yr.

In the article: S.-C. Su and M.-C. Chu:

IS THE UNIVERSE ROTATING?

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637C703/1354;jsessionid=9C906D14D629BE8D95B9AC42B26292FB.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org#reference

constrain the angular speed of the rotation to be less than 10^-9 rad / yr.

In the article: Barrow, J. D., Juszkiewicz, R., & Sonoda, D. H.:

Universal rotation - How large can it be?

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1985MNRAS.213..917B/0000918.000.html

put a constraint of 1.5 × 10^−15 rad / yr on the angular speed of t the rotation.

In the article: Lior Shamir:

Colour asymmetry between galaxies with clockwise and counterclockwise handedness

https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.06255

on the experimental data show the presence of a color asymmetry between

galaxies with clockwise and counterclockwise handedness. This is yet another proof of the violation of the isotropy principle.

The attached all refer to the same paper which gives some current observational limits.

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-scientists-universe.html

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.131302

https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07178

Very conditional: the generalized structure of the observed Universe can be represented as a composition of its fine structure and large-scale structure. To study the fine structure is most convenient on the basis of the CMB study. Many data (including those given above) on the study of the fine structure of the observable Universe on the basis of CMB confirm the principle of its isotropy. At the same time, some studies of the large-scale structure (including those given above) of the observable Universe give reason to believe that the principle of isotropy can be violated.

This view offers indeed some compromise. One question remains, however, can we find a metric obtained from solving of GR (General relativity) equations satisfying the proposed conceptual model? Until now we have mostly the Gödel metric; nice discussion and some graphical illustration are presented at

http://www.vis.uni-stuttgart.de/~grave/paper/HighEndVisWorkshop07.pdf

All the best for your work with this fundamental problem.

Yes the entire Universe rotates as it originated from a cosmic rotating black hole

If the observed Universe rotates, then its space is limited (but not closed!). It is known that CMB originated in the era of primary recombination. The source of CMB is currently absent, but in its spectrum at a frequency of 160.4 GHz (this is the wavelength of 0.0018690303 m) there is a maximum of radiation! There is no source, but there is a maximum. In an open and constantly expanding universe, all frequencies of CMB are equal in rights, so the CMB spectrum in such a universe should be uniform and should not have dedicated frequencies (of the type 160.4 GHz) with a pronounced maximum. The justification for such a maximum can be resonance in an axisymmetric resonance chamber. Such a resonant chamber is the observable Universe, and the relic radiation is reflected from the boundary of the two environments (for example, at the whispering gallery modes) and forms standing waves and resonance at a frequency of 160.4 GHz. In addition to the resonant chamber, what other sources can be the maximum of the CMB spectrum at the frequency of 160.4 GHz?

VT: the CMB spectrum in such a universe should be uniform and should not have dedicated frequencies

It doesn't, the value you quote is not a spectral line, just the peak of a smooth curve.

VT: what other sources can be the maximum of the CMB spectrum at the frequency of 160.4 GHz?

The CMB has a simple thermal spectrum, it follows the Planck curve and the maximum at around 160 GHz corresponds to the temperature at the time of last scattering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

I agree with you, this maximum corresponds to the envelope of the spectrum, rather than the spectral line, and for example, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

a graph of the envelope of the cosmic microwave background spectrum (!) measured by the FIRAS instrument on the COBE. The maximum of the envelope of the spectrum corresponds to a frequency of 160.4 GHz (in the source - refinement of 160.23 GHz). Since the era of recombination (about 13.5 billion years ago), a uniform temperature decrease has occurred throughout the frequency range to its present value of 2.726 degrees Kelvin. If the universe is open and continuously expanding, then the curve of the approximation of the envelope of the CMB spectrum must be uniform across the entire spectrum of frequencies (according to your reference: there is a bright maximum for a temperature of 5000 K on the spectrum of the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in the thermal equilibrium, and for at a temperature of 3000 K, this maximum is practically not expressed, then what can be stated for the temperature of 2.726 Kelvin?), but this curve contains a maximum!

A very general theorem of classical mechanics of rigid bodies is the Chasles' theorem. It says that most general motion of a rigid body is translation along a line plus a rotation about that line (considered as an axis). Therefore rotational energy is an integral part of the energy of a rigid body. But then we cannot think of the observed  universe as a rigid body. Galaxies, however have both translational kinetic energy and rotational kinetic energy. Similarly black holes also have mass, charge and angular momentum.

Whether dark sector (matter and energy) is born out of rotational energy of the observed sector is a matter of debate and it certainly is an open topic of discussion. Influence of Dark sector should be  overwhelmingly greater than that of the observed sector which constitutes of about 5% of all mass-energy. Then one should perhaps think of a scenario having multicomponent dark matter/dark energy and then  part of it  being resulted from rotational motion of the observed celestial objects.

VT: Since the era of recombination (about 13.5 billion years ago), a uniform temperature decrease has occurred throughout the frequency range to its present value of 2.726 degrees Kelvin.

That is correct.

VT: If the universe is open and continuously expanding, then the curve of the approximation of the envelope of the CMB spectrum must be uniform across the entire spectrum of frequencies

No, we just see the thermal curve corresponding to the temperature of 2.726K, light at a higher temperature passed our location in the past and at a lower temperature will be seen in the future but today we see just 2.726K and 160GHz is the peak of that curve.

I agree. Analysis and verification using the Planck formulas show that the source of the maximum in the envelope of the CMB spectrum is its temperature of 2.726 K. From this point of view of the theme: the universe, as a resonance chamber and peak envelope spectrum at 160.4 GHz as evidence of the limitations of the universe, are becoming irrelevant. At the same time, the question remains: why with the open universe for 13.5 billion years, the temperature of the CMB is 2.726 K and not absolute zero?

VT: why with the open universe for 13.5 billion years, the temperature of the CMB is 2.726 K and not absolute zero?

It follows from the Cosmological Principle which says the mean conditions are the same everywhere, there is no unique centre to the universe. If you define any comoving volume, there are as many CMB photons entering as there are leaving on average, a condition of dynamic equilibrium.

The only cause of cooling is the red-shifting of light which reduces the photon energy by the usual factor of (1+z). The mean temperature at last scattering for z=1089 was 2.7255*1090=2970K so in the future it will be 2970/(1+z) and that will never go to zero.

Dear Thierry De Mees,

At present, the presence of a red shift from distant objects of the observable Universe can be justified on the basis of two mutually exclusive physical concepts: 1) expansion of the space of the observed Universe (dark energy); 2) the rotation of the space of the observable Universe. The disadvantage of the first concept is the absence of an experimentally grounded (and theoretically inconsistent) source of dark energy. The disadvantage of the second concept is the following: the rotation of the space of the observable Universe violates the principle of its isotropy. If the structure of the space of the observed Universe is represented as a composition of its fine structure and large-scale structure, most of the studies (in particular, CMB studies) of its fine structure confirm the principle of isotropy. At the same time, some experimental studies of the large-scale structure (they are indicated above) show that the principle of isotropy can be violated. If the space of the universe does not rotate, then the number of right and left spiral galaxies should be approximately equal. However, we are seeing an asymmetry in this issue. This asymmetry is not a direct proof of the presence or absence of rotation of the space of the observable Universe. It indicates a violation of the isotropy of its space and indirectly confirms that the space of the observable Universe can rotate. Next. Since the mechanism of formation of left and right spiral galaxies that you described is not dependent on the direction of their swirling (left or right), then in the absence of rotation of the universe space their number should be approximately the same. But this is not so - there is an asymmetry in their number.

Dear Thierry De Mees,

Your arguments are focused on the possibility of the emergence of structural asymmetry in left and right spiral galaxies. My arguments are based on experimentally proven fact quantify asymmetry of left and right spiral galaxies: spiral galaxies left by 7% more than the right.

As for Halton Arp's research, his ideas that are observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component, as well as the quantization of the redshift are hypotheses that do not have sufficient experimental justification. Therefore, there is no third special way in the concept of redshift.

Dear Thierry De Mees,

…” Each massive star collapse changes the angular momentum of the spiral galaxy, because it become fast spinning stars or black holes with a huge increase of its existing angular momentum, due to relativistic gravity”...

I agree. But: 1) this process is an exclusively local, internal process of each spiral galaxy; 2) this process equally (!) affects the left spiral galaxies just as well as the right spiral galaxies; 3) taking into account 1) and 2), the number of left and right spiral galaxies in the observable Universe should be approximately equal. However, there is no equality: the number of left spiral galaxies is 7% larger than the right spiral galaxies. Such asymmetry can not be created by internal processes of spiral galaxies, but only by global ones, which are connected with the entire observable Universe. In fact, this is a violation of the isotropy of the large-scale space structure of the observable Universe. 

…” However, the hypocrite mainstream ignores”…

As an independent researcher, I understand very well (and I feel myself) this situation.

In this case, the most effective, and perhaps the only possible way of promoting ideas in the scientific community is to check them and confirm them in practice, in experiments. In astrophysics this is very limited. Unfortunately, the ideas of Halton Arp are not sufficiently substantiated by experimental data. All that is not confirmed by experiment, or experiment allows multiple interpretations is not a theory, but a hypothesis.

Dear Thierry De Mees,

I thank you for interesting and useful links. The main conclusion that can be drawn from the analysis of articles and discussions is the following: regardless of the observation conditions, regardless of the selected reference frames, spiral galaxies can be conditionally divided into left and right galaxies. Further, with such a classification, their calculation shows that the number of spiral galaxies (in this case, with the chosen frame of reference - left ones) of the same type is 7% larger than the other type. The axes of symmetry of galaxies, the direction of their rotation, the angles of inclination of the plane of galaxies to the observer's line of sight ... and many other particulars in this case play a secondary role. The main thing here is the quantitative asymmetry.

Dear Thierry De Mees,

Asymmetry of 7% is only possible indirect (!) proofs of rotation of space of the observed Universe. Additional experimental and theoretical studies are required on the basis of which direct evidence can be obtained, or many indirect ones, but which, in complex, can give an unambiguous conclusion - yes it does.

One of the direct proofs will also be the following: if the hypothesis of dark energy is not proved, then a scientific justification for the presence of a red shift from distant objects of the observed Universe and the Hubble law will be required. The best candidate for this (given some of the indirect features that are mentioned above) is the hypothesis of the rotation of the space of the observable Universe.

@Valery,

Em-radiation has momentum, ok? If you put something with a constant momentum to rotate, it will get more extra momentum more far it is from the center of the rotational motion. At free fall all elements can only fall away from the center. (There should be some mechanism that could affect torque on radiation, eh?)

Hence, you should see blueshift not redshift.

My explanation is that in the universe we have spherically symmetric "negative" rotations, masses. And for space there must be then redshifts, ok? Those masses are not in the same dense spot...

Dear Esa Säkkinen,

the basis in any study is the correct choice of the frame of reference. In the scenario that you presented the observer is outside the frame of reference, in which the process of rotation of the sphere occurs. In our case, we, as observers, are in a global frame of reference that performs a rotational motion.

Ok, how could the center axis of rotation be just here? If not, we should see still blueshift in some directions. More natural choice is that every observer is "outsider" and the minkowskian center of the universe is at BB.

Space is not something physical that it can rotate. What is the space in your theory made up of?

Dear Esa Säkkinen,

The observer, who is outside the rotating sphere, will see both the red and blue shifts. The peculiarity of the observer, which is located inside the rotating sphere, is the growth of the linear velocity (and, correspondingly, its projection to the observer's line of sight, that is, its radial component that is directed from the observer, and this is only the redshift) as the distance to the object of observation. Considering that for all azimuths of observation, the average viewing radius is about 14 billion light years, then perhaps our galaxy is in the center of the Hubble sphere with a radius: R = c / Ho.

Dear Vikram Zaveri,

In this discussion, we are talking about a part ((infinitesimal!) of the global Universe that is accessible to instrumental observation, and which we call the observable Universe, and which is bounded by the Hubble sphere with a radius equal to: R = 1.364 x 10 ^ (26) m. The mass of the Hubble sphere is: M = 1.837 x 10 ^ (53) kg. Simplified, in other words - in some part of the global Universe there is a mass M = 1.837 x 10 ^ (53) kg, which creates around itself a spherical gravitational field with radius R = 1.364 x 10 ^ (26) m. This gravitational sphere rotates.

VT: In this discussion, we are talking about a part ((infinitesimal!) of the global Universe that is accessible to instrumental observation, and which we call the observable Universe,

That is a valid and important point to note.

VT: This gravitational sphere rotates.

If the small sphere rotates within a universe which is not rotating overall (there may be other spheres outside our horizon rotating in other directions) then what would an observer near the edge of our sphere see?

Unless you posit that we occupy a privileged location, contrary to the Copernican Principle, we should see some sort of boundary in that model.

Dear George Dishman,

for an observer who is inside the rotating Hubble sphere (conditionally - electromagnetic fractal of the global Universe, see please: FRACTAL STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE

 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01330337v1) : for all azimuths, the boundary of this sphere is determined by the maximum value of the red shift. If the observed Universe (the Hubble sphere) does rotate, then the linear velocity on its conditional boundary approaches the speed of light. For an observer who is outside the Hubble sphere (conditionally - in the gravitational fractal of the global Universe), the pattern of scenarios on its boundary will largely depend on the relative position of the observer and Hubble's sphere.

@Valery Timkov,

From your explanation, you don't mean that space rotates but that the entire energy content of our universe rotates with respect to the space outside and inside the sphere of our universe.

A strong direct proof of absence of expansion of the observable Universe (and hence the absence of dark energy) is equality of modules of gravity factor of the observed Universe and the acceleration of force of the dark energy (it is: cHo) (by reference in the question of the counter-version model: the rotation of the Universe space is absent, and it expands with acceleration under action of the force of dark energy). Since the expansion is absent, but there is a red shift from the remote objects of the Universe, the motion that satisfies the Hubble law is the rotation of the space of the observed Univers.

Rotation requires an axis. There would be maximum tangential velocity in directions perpendicular to the axis but none on the axis. Reality is that the redshift is the same in all directions to within a few parts per million. Radial expansion dominates.

@Valery Timkov

There is a stronger evidence that all these considerations need revision.  All your thinking is based upon a 4D Spacetime.  

The observation of hyperspherical acoustic waves (waves that have a footprint along the distance dimension) challenging both GR and the Copernican Principle were found in the SDSS BOSS dataset indicating clearly that we live in a 5D spacetime, where all the 4 spatial dimensions are non compact. 

The SN1a survey distances, corrected by an epoch dependent G, indicates that that hyperspherical surface where we exist, is traveling at the speed of light.

You can easily download the SDSS dataset and see that the observations are correct.  I made a video to help setting up the Anaconda environment.

You can also watch the video below containing an alternative model for Cosmogenesis based on the evidence found in both SDSS and SN1a surveys. It clearly shows the effect of many Bangs (in a crescendo) on the initial hyperspherical Universe

It is all there in Black and White (and sometimes in color..:)

#####################################################

Check HU (the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory) view of Cosmogenesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r54AQc2BR5c

The Universe maps associated with this video are derived directly from the SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey) datasets. That is, the existence of acoustic waves along the DISTANCE dimension were there for 10 years and SDSS couldn’t see it because of ideology. They believed and had blind faith, that the Universe is a 4D Spacetime. A 4D Spacetime requires any position to be equivalent to another position.

HU proposes a 5D Spacetime and expects hyperspherical acoustic waves at the beginning of times. Those hyperspherical acoustic waves would take place along the DISTANCE dimension. That is what astronomical observations support. They don’t support General Relativity, Inflation Theory, Dark Energy etc.

Below is the github repository and video to help setting up the python environment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r54AQc2BR5c

https://github.com/ny2292000/TheHypergeometricalUniverse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04JeZ1n4qNI

Dear George Dishman,

the characteristic parameters of the Hubble linear law are the values of the redshift Z and the Hubble constant Ho. Yes, the reality is that the redshift is the same in all directions to within a few parts per million. As for the Hubble constant,

according to the 7-year observations of WMAP (2010), the value of the Hubble constant Ho = 70.4 (km / s) / Mpc. This corresponds to the radius of the observed universe of 1.314e26 m. According to the Planck mission (2013), the value of the Hubble constant Ho = 67.8 (km / s) / Mpc. This corresponds to the radius of the observed Universe 1.3644е26 m.

The difference is 163.3 Mpc. This is 4 times the average size of void.

Next. There are doubts about the red shift primarily from the points of the axis of rotation, which are in the zone of relativistic velocities. These doubts can arise only in the observer, who precisely (!) Is on the axis of rotation. But even with a slight displacement of the observer from the axis of rotation, we get the picture that we observe. Next. Also, to fully display the redshift, it is required that the zone of relativistic velocities on the axis of rotation be in the wall of the void, otherwise this axis will not be identified (+ It is also necessary to take into account Ho). Next. By reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

we observe that from year to year different values of the Hubble constant are measured. This can be caused, among other things, by a slight precession of the rotation axis - then the extreme points of the rotation axis will move along the surface of the Hubble sphere. Then wherever the observer was - in all directions there will be a red shift caused by rotation, since I repeat - the modules: the acceleration of the force of dark energy and the gravity of the factor of the observable universe are equal.

Dear Marco Pereira,

thank you for the magnificent, interesting and useful links. You carried out very interesting studies based on experimental data and obtained important scientific results that confirm: the large-scale structure of the observed Universe has a cellular structure - in this structure there are: 1) voids, which in the graphs are represented by the minimum density of galaxies; 2) bridges or walls between voids, which are represented on the graphs by a periodic increase in the density of galaxies. Such a structure of the observable Universe is created by one Big Bang and it does not require a lot of Big Bangs to create it. As for the 5D model of the observable Universe, according to the law of sufficient grounds (Occam's razor): one should not multiply existence beyond necessity, that is, the existing dimensions of space-energy (time) is sufficient to adequately represent the majority of the existing models of the Universe today.

Hi Valery,

VT: the characteristic parameters of the Hubble linear law are the values of the redshift Z and the Hubble constant Ho. Yes, the reality is that the redshift is the same in all directions to within a few parts per million.

The density and temperature of the material we observe are the same to within a few parts per million in all directions.

VT: As for the Hubble constant,

The constant is the average coefficient over all directions so has a single value.

VT: according to the 7-year observations of WMAP (2010), the value of the Hubble constant Ho = 70.4 (km / s) / Mpc. This corresponds to the radius of the observed universe of 1.314e26 m. According to the Planck mission (2013), the value of the Hubble constant Ho = 67.8 (km / s) / Mpc. This corresponds to the radius of the observed Universe 1.3644е26 m.

Measurements from different techniques and/or different instruments, or even different observations with the same instrument, can be expected to differ. the coefficient still has a single value by definition.

VT: The difference is 163.3 Mpc. This is 4 times the average size of void.

There are no voids in the CMB source material, the density as we said above is the same in all directions to a few ppm.

Next. There are doubts about the red shift primarily from the points of the axis of rotation, which are in the zone of relativistic velocities. These doubts can arise only in the observer, who precisely (!) Is on the axis of rotation. But even with a slight displacement of the observer from the axis of rotation, we get the picture that we observe.

Rotation would define a direction as the axis but every observer whatever their location would see the universe rotating about themselves. That is similar to the fact that all observers see the Hubble expansion as centred on themselves.

VT: Also, to fully display the redshift, it is required that the zone of relativistic velocities on the axis of rotation be in the wall of the void,

What void? There are none in the CMB.

VT: .. the extreme points of the rotation axis will move along the surface of the Hubble sphere.

You seem confused, the axis would be the minimum, not the maximum. Transverse velocity due to rotation would produce a simple cos(theta) redshift with zero on the axis (in both directions) and maximum perpendicular to the axis. That would add to the redshift caused by expansion. By observation, the redshift of the CMB is a factor of 1090 in all directions so rotation effects must be at least three orders of magnitude less than that due to expansion.

they say universe rotates, but as it grows, somewhen its peripheral speed would be faster than light, unless some-one or some-thing slows it down to get deadlocked (and aligns itself with the theory).

Dear George Dishman,

yes, the 163.3 Mpc difference is a systematic error. In all directions, it is the same. The red shift, which is based on the Doppler effect, allows us to estimate only the radial component (relative to the observer) of the total velocity of the remote object of the observed Universe. To estimate the distance to this object, additional data are required. Considering the presence of a systematic error and inaccuracy in estimating the distance to a remote object of the observed Universe (by cepheids, Ia supernova ...), it is problematic to uniquely identify (primarily from the point of view of the distance to them) the regions of the Universe of interest to us. In the context of the question, we are interested in two opposite points of the axis of rotation (and only the axis of rotation!), which are on the surface of the Hubble sphere. Further. If the observer is on the axis of rotation, and in the vicinity of these opposing points there are objects that allow us to estimate the distance to them, and at the points themselves there is no emptiness and they have objects through which this observer can estimate the value of the red shift from them, he even taking into account the presence of relativistic effects, notice the discrepancy between the values of the redshift and the values of the distance estimate. If the Earth is on the axis of rotation, then I doubt that at the present time the level of development of astrophysical measurements will allow identifying both the axis (virtual!) of rotation and the opposing points on it. If the Earth is outside the axis of rotation, then the problem of identifying opposing points becomes even more complicated.

Dear Paul Pistea,

Ultimate physical interaction transmission speed - for the observable Universe is the speed of light in vacuum - is defined by the space - energetic parameters of the observable Universe: c^2 = (MG)/R; where M is the mass of the observed Universe, R is its radius, G is the gravitational constant. Or: c^3 = MGHo; where Ho - Hubble const. Within the Hubble sphere, all quantities are: - constants (!). It also means that after the Big Bang the expansion of the Universe is over. If we admit, the radius of the observable Universe will get an increment (that is, assume that the universe expands), then within the Hubble sphere some constants (and speed of light as well) will also change.

dear Valery, that`s what I have demonstrated: that natural constants are not constant indeed! (s. my work published here on researchGate)

In the preprint: Analytical evaluation of the numerical values of the Hubble constant and the main spatial-energy characteristics of the observable Universe based on golden algebraic fractals and the law “Planck’s Universal Proportions”

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35477.37604

evidence is presented for the rotation of space of the observable Universe and the absence of dark energy. 1) Analytical evaluation of the Hubble constant exclusively on the parameters of elementary particles suggests that the Hubble constant cannot be a characteristic of dark energy. 2) The Hubble sphere, as the observable Universe, lies inside the Schwarzschild sphere, and therefore is a black hole. There are currently no known cases of expansion of the black hole space. The presence of a red shift indicates that the black hole rotates.

3) Let us determine the estimate of the magnitude of the force of dark energy. The estimated of mass of the Hubble sphere is: M = 1.8442238 * 10 ^ (53) kg. ( please, see the preprint above ). The acceleration of force of dark energy is equal to the gravity factor of the observable Universe and is equal to: a = c * H = 6.5636448430 * 10 ^ (- 10) [m ^ (1) s ^ (- 2)]. Then the modulus of force of dark energy is: F = M * c * H = 1.2104830 * 10 ^ (44) [kg ^ (1) m ^ (1) s ^ (- 2)], and the force is directed from the Hubble sphere. The modulus of the dark energy force is identically equal to the Planck force. Exactly the same Planck force — the force of gravitational contraction of the observable Universe — affects every point of the boundary of the Hubble sphere, but this force is directed inside the Hubble sphere. The force of gravitational contraction and the force of dark energy are equal in magnitude to the force of Planck, but directed in opposite directions. This means that there is no expansion of the space of the Hubble sphere.

So, three main characteristics of dark energy: the Hubble constant; acceleration of dark energy = gravity factor of the observable Universe; the modulus of dark energy = the modulus of the force of gravitational contraction of the observable Universe = the Planck force is the immanent characteristics of the observable Universe. These facts say that dark energy does not exist.

a Gödel solution to a rotating space of einsten`s equations exists- it seems that some scientists consider a rotating universe (they say it occured about 70 times...?)

Yes, this solution of the Einstein equations for the rotating space of the Universe was proposed by Gödel in 1949. However, 70 revolutions since the Big Bang is a lot. According to my estimates - one not full turn. As close to full.

If for an estimate of the time since the Big Bang take 13.88 billion years.