|
I'm sorry to say that none of these is close to the review I asked for, and afaics your first result explicitly quotes from and your fourth is preceded by an image taken from the PRL letter (Sadeeh et al) I supplied in my comment's second paragraph. The former is a summary of Sadeeh et al's results: the constraints on vorticity are unforgivingly strong and vanishingly small. The latter does not even discuss vorticity or rotation or spin outside the caption of said image. Search-fu failure. That the bigthink article is simply pop-sci (Ethan Siegel is very well known) and not a literature review is something I think you should have noticed. As to your last link, the conjecture about a preferred handedness of spiral galaxies went nowhere (you found a link from more than a decade ago; the preprint (and a visit to google scholar and citeseerx) does not match a peer-reviewed publication <https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3437>), and additionally says nothing about galaxy clusters, ellipticals, and so forth. Even more importantly it's only for z < 0.085 which is in the region where the linear theory of cosmology is not expected by anyone to apply, c.f. my comment's penultimate paragraph. Finally, your second result to a 2013 paper is different and interesting, and at last has evidence of engagement by other authors <https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=10702549710128965...> however considerably more than half of those are by U V Satya Seshavathram et al talking about their very non-standard hypotheses in many fields <https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/U-V-S-...> (note the cold fusion stuff, and the at least four very different rotating cosmologies, quantum and not, dark foam and not). Also, the first (by GS ordering at the link above) citation of the 2011 paper you found, amusingly, is a self-citation (Chechin, Astronomy Reports 2016). Another Chechin self-cite, in a 2014 paper, also looks interesting (although it's only cited twice). So it's pretty clear on your supplied evidence that there is no debate about the rotation of the universe. That's not too surprising, even BOOMERaNG data fails to support (and even somewhat undermines) early-time (pre-CMB) relevance of anything but scalar perturbations. Thanks anyway. I'll enjoy reading these two wild Kazakh ideas I didn't see when they were fresh last decade, so your efforts weren't wasted. (ETA: to be clear, Chechin and his coauthors are doing physics. Their math is sensible, their argument based on physical principles. They demonstrate professional familiarity with the standard cosmology. They advance a hypothesis (well a couple hypotheses, they too have multiple spinning universe models; their Generalized Jeans one is the most interesting) which is probably in conflict with observations available not long after publication date. They aren't pretending to be physicists, and they're not cranks. But the idea that there is an angular velocity proportional to the square root of the (dark) energy density is ... pretty wild! As in nobody's put it in a zoo of models.) |