The ‘Big Bang’ was the tap being turned on.
Our Universe is a larger version of a long soak.
Is the universe spinning ?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688
Are we the scum on god’s bath, spiraling down the cosmic plughole ?
Should radio telescopes be re-tuned to detect glugging noises rather than quasars ?
I didn’t read the whole article… not trying to be rude… IANAS… lol… I Am Not A Scientist… but I thought that for like the first 100 million years the universe was undifferentiated subatomic particles and that from that point up to like 1 billion years old, the universe did not even have galaxies. Actually, I think maybe galaxies formed at like 3 or 4 billion years…
I think you can google cosmic calendar or history of the universe and get some pretty good results…
That was a pretty interesting article… not that long… I thought it was going to be real long but that is mainly the comments below it… interesting article, but, I do not believe in any metaphysical explanations for the origin of the universe… so I am not sure how to comment on your comments.
Spinning with regard to what?
Does this mean there is some external frame of reference to our entire cosmos?
By now, of course, the Expansionary Phase would have slowed the spin to almost nothing (if angular momentum is conserved.) So whatever effect the spin might have had in the earliest part of the cosmos’ history, it would have almost no effect at all now.
It would be kind of fun if this gave us a way to place our cosmos into a greater frame of reference. Up to now, most ways of thinking of that have been nonsensical, for being immune to any conceivable test. (The complaint many have against String Theory: lovely as anything…but how do we test it?)
This is worth exploring. If I stick a cylinder out into space and give it a good hearty spin, I can walk around on the inside surface of the cylinder, the spin producing the same effect as gravity. What defines the fact that the cylinder is spinning? If it is only spinning in comparison with the external frame of reference (the nearby stars and planets), presumably they are in some fashion interacting with my cylinder — ??
How about I put that cylinder out in the midst of intergalactic space?
How about I put that cylinder farther than 15 billiion light years from any other object? Can I put my cylinder somewhere where I can’t produce artificial gravity by spinning it due to being unable to define it as spinning with regard to anything close enough to it to be able to interact?
I’ve never had a good grasp of relative motion as it applies to radial motion. Help me out here.
And sometimes God pees in the bathwater – that’s where Scientologists come from.
In the early days of Relativity, Einstein and Mach disagreed over this. One said that, yes, an object can rotate, even if it is the only object in otherwise totally empty space. It rotates with respect to “the metric” of underlying empty space. The other said it can’t rotate, because there’s no frame of reference for it to rotate within.
(I don’t remember which held which view…or which view prevails today.)
Whichever it was, AFAICT the consequences of general relativity seem to suggest that rotation requires a frame of reference – mind you, on this subject AFAICT isn’t very far at all! 
But this seems to be a consequence of the frame-dragging phenomenon (Lense-Thirring effect), thus:
According to standard textbook [Newtonian] physics the equatorial bulge is due to the rotation of the earth with respect to absolute space. On the basis of Lense and Thirring’s results, however, Einstein would have had to answer “Yes”! In this respect general relativity is indeed more relativistic than its predecessors: it does not matter whether we choose to regard the earth as rotating and the heavens fixed, or the other way around: the two situations are now dynamically, as well as kinematically equivalent.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime4.html
This discussion comes at the very end of the article.
However that doesn’t seem to be what this research is saying. Longo seems to be making the intriguing hypothesis that there was some pre-existing frame of reference – a kind of hyperspace – in which a spinning universe was created. I just don’t follow how he reaches that conclusion based on a slight preference for galaxies to have one particular spin,.
Galaxies spin one way in the northern hemisphere, and the other way in the southern hemisphere…
That’s just a trivial difference in perspective, because everyone in the southern hemisphere is upside down. 
The point that the researchers are making is that 7% more galaxies observed in the NH have one spin vs. the other, and they’re looking to see if the same prevails in the SH. Now I admit that if that whole section of observable SH sky showed exactly the same differential, that would be interesting. But all we have so far is a 7% difference observed in the NH that could be due to many different random causes.
To the OP:
Yes.
So the Earth could be the centre of the universe after all ? I knew Copernicus was up to no good.
Only in the summer time.
I’m a bit confused by their observation. They claim that there is a 7% increase in counter clockwise vs clockwise, but given that a rotation can be clockwise when viewed from above and counter clockwise when viewed from below and galaxies can be pointing every which way, its not clear how the define a galaxy’s rotation direction.
Also given that we can’t see the entire universe it could be that the 7% bias was due to a random local turbulence in the portion very early universe, that became the visible universe even though it may be that the total universe has no net angular momentum.
You can’t think of the rod as a single object. Angular momentum is actually just a convenient way of thinking about differential linear momentum of a number of individual objects that are connected by forces. The individual atoms are at one end of the rod are moving in straight lines at specific velocities relative to the atoms at the other end of the rod, but are being pulled inward due to the elector-magnetic forces of the crystalline structure. You can measure the difference in relative velocity between the atoms at the two ends even without anything else in the universe, and so you can tell that your rod is rotating and feel the “centrifugal acceleration” that is induced by your body wanting to move in a straight line while the rest of the rod is being pulled inwards.
Are you implying that God gets dirty? That He needs to take a bath?
Next you’ll be talking about God’s toilet.
God threw up once; that’s how we got the TimeCube web site.
Look, all I’m saying is the quantum foam comes from somewhere.