Dgruss23

I had assumed that the point was quite clear or at least it should appear so.I had said to the original poster in the other thread that it is easier speaking of a greater rotation than galactic rotation rather than a universal 'center' not only because galactic structure and formation would appear to support a greater rotation but that recent data of 'accelerating' expansion would also support it,the analogy of hurricane development relates to the former but the latter is a far more difficult matter to express.

The difficulty is that cosmological modelling on a galactic scale may only be accomplished in principle rather than by observation because the scales involved are enormous,the astronomers such as Copernicus and Kepler could use the local stars as a reference for the motion of the primary planets in sorting out apparent motion from true motion however to use the true rotation of the local Milky Way stars as a reference against the remaining galaxies is far more difficult even if it is taken as a given that the local stars rotate around an axis.We can determine where the Milky Way axis is just as we can determine the heliocentric axis but from our position it appears that everything rotates around us,rather than call this an illusion Newton called this relative motion,valid up to a point but without the translation into true or absolute motion you would not have heliocentric modelling or his gravitation laws.

There is a tendency to pad language to make it appear profound but I am heading in the opposite direction,I am aware that the principle of cosmological modelling off the rotation of the local stars is difficult enough and admits no grandstanding,that being said,even it it is up for discussion I see many here adhere to the author of spacetime as he tethers the elliptical path of a planet to circumpolar motion and then paste a local 'warped space' solution on to this geocentricity.The point is that discussion on a greater rotation than galactic rotation and how to free up the necessary information does not look good for me while you can safely return to the concepts you adhere to.

Perhaps it is because consideration of a greater rotation than galactic rotation raises more possibilities than difficulties that some may find it appealing and particularly as a factor in galactic formation.I suspect that a physicist would be terrified if the poster who asked about the 'center' of the Universe followed up with the question as to how this fits in with the apparent motion of the galaxies to certain points in the cosmos such as the Great Attractor.