Can rotation solve the Hubble Puzzle?

> All objects within our universe rotate, including planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, and galaxy clusters. Moreover, black holes, spherically symmetric objects with horizons, display near maximal rotation as presented by Daly (2019). The idea that everything revolves [...] naturally extends to the whole universe, as hinted by recent claims of anisotropic Hubble expansion in X-ray observations by Migkas et al. (2021). Furthermore, a plausible syllogism is that the universe has near-maximal rotation, motivated by cosmologies where the universe is the interior of a black hole (Pathria 1972).

If I understand what I skimmed, the idea is that <i>space-time itself</i> rotates, not all the collective matter in it?

I seem to recall there was an article posted here recently which noted that galaxies have a preferred direction of rotation. Seems like the universe itself rotating could be a reason why?

Universe is called universe because it is the only one. Everything that exists should be part of the universe. When we say the universe rotates, what does it mean? Rotate relative to what? Does it mean that there&#x27;s a larger &quot;universe&quot; that contains ours?

Rotation relative to what?

ICYMI: a slick link from the article with a video that demonstrates how closed timelike curves work in Godel&#x27;s time traversal solution to Einstein&#x27;s field equations. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;iopscience.iop.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;10.1088&#x2F;1367-2630&#x2F;15&#x2F;1&#x2F;013063" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;iopscience.iop.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;10.1088&#x2F;1367-2630&#x2F;15&#x2F;1&#x2F;01...</a>

Wait did nobody seriously consider rotation yet? Everything is rotating. Angular momentum is conserved.

<i>“We show that a Gödel inspired slowly rotating dark-fluid variant of the concordance model resolves this tension…”</i><p>Gödel wait what? I thought of him as “only” the logician who killed Hiblert’s dreams and caused people to question the very foundations of mathematics.<p>Dude then took up physics as a hobby and trolled Einstein by discovering closed time-like curves?

If your paper has a question title, it should be sent back to you with the note &quot;change the title to summarize the paper&quot;.

based on napkin math, the rotation they land on: 4.34 x 10^-20 rad&#x2F;s is one order of magnitude (not a lot on a cosmological scale) slower than necessary for a causal disconnect at the boundary of the observable universe due to tangential velocity (at ~C) - obviously my maths could be off-by-one.<p>Is this a reasonable conclusion?