ALMA sees old galaxies before they merged. two ways to look back into the past?

In my opinion you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

NotEinstein said: ↑
Oh, it's certainly a possibility that spacetime existed before the big bang.

↑
If you observe that space/ time in some way possibly existed in the pre-BB era,
(I don't.)

above quotations just to show how breaking up statements can be made to appear to be a refutation but are not, just feeding the " I said yous said" type
sematics.

Of course, that is why all challenges giving direct contrary information are welcome. "This contradicts GR SR-- " does not cut it, if not accompanied with how, because--. . and if we add up all the points gathered where the elements of the model are reasonably reflected in reality is good. Keeps the viewers entertained.
One of the strong points of the model is, that it provides a picture of the possible mechanism involved that feeds the accelerating expansion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I inserted the infinity into the small into our discussion of the infinity into the large to show, that thinking about the unthinkable can be facilitated by perspective, and yes, if the space/time of the universe is infinite into the future, but not into the past would make nature weird, that is why

the ESM model proposes infinite time past and future, in which the universe had a start and is now expanding through.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here was another example how the discussion has turned out to verify the moving through time or not membrane.
Ther relativistic curving the membrane into an inwardly pointing funnel. Exactly the situation with time dilation experienced in the universe. Funnels are fun. took many tries though.

on a background level: What is moving, time or the observer? moving has always fascinated me. Back in our youth, steam train travel was the big experience, great breathing monsters of locomotives. Express trains were the slowest to pull out. With more than one train on the tracks, You could not tell watching from inside which train had started to move and in what direction, Saying that time moves is comparing it to thinking the station platform is accelerating. Or like in aerobatics, the egocentric view is you can make the Earth spin at the flick of the joystick.
With the Expanding Sphere membrane model, I avoid the egocentric Earth-, Universe- centred perspective. it's good to be humble.
The same "train experience" can be had in a parking lot today, when in panic you see your car inexplicably move toward a crash, not respond to your brake pedaling , only to realize that the next vehicle over is pulling out.
It is either you that moves,- or time. If time is fundamental, infinite, . it will be easier and turn out that you and I move through the little time I have left ahead of me. nebeltime will then be over, but lot of it left for others to enjoy. bon voyage.

 

I should have been more careful in my wording. I meant to say that while I consider it to be possible, I do not currently believe that space/time existed in the pre-BB era.

If I have done this, please point these instances out to me, and I shall provide the reasoning behind the contradiction-claim.
As an aside, you do this all the time. You assert many things without explaining why those things are true. Take for example the merging of space with time to form spacetime. You merely assert that it's possible, without providing any evidence or describing the mechanism through which this has happened. Credit where credits it due, you are honest about this, but how is that different than what you are complaining about in your quote?

Again, I don't think "entertainment of the viewers" should be the goal of this thread. I don't think it should even factor into it at all!

Perhaps, but it gives no quantitative description of it. At this point in time, it's merely assertions that what it predicts is (can be) compatible with what we are seeing in reality.

I do not understand what the purpose of that change of subject was? Also, I do not consider infinity to be unthinkable.

That is your opinion, not mine. I'm actually fine with an infinite time that has a starting point. Like how the radius of a sphere can be anything from zero to infinity. It clearly has a starting point (zero), but is still infinite.

(I know; no comment.)

 

Nebel: I inserted the infinity into the small into our discussion of the infinity into the large to show, that thinking about the unthinkable can be facilitated by perspective,

The purpose was to broaden the understanding of infinity as a manageable concept, it is not unthinkable, but hard to grasp for some. if not all,- truly.

Nebel said: and yes, if the space/time of the universe is infinite into the future, but not into the past would make nature weird, that is why

in the model, and the reality, the universe (or the membrane) is not infinite yet. It would have to have infinite time to expand into to become infinite. . That infinite time would surround the whole sphere, therefore also the starting point at the meeting of all the radii, the BBeginning Bang. voila! time had to be infinite always. in all ways you want to look at it.

re: objections without sustanciations, Standard model SR ,GR

Difference:--The merging of the directionless time dimension with the 3 space directions at the BBB are assumed automatic occurrences (like the starting of spacetime with the beginning of space) and the later starting of world/timelines. (although interesting mechanism might be discovered when one gets into the devilish details). The alleged clash between the ESM model is with real well understood abstract entities, mainstreamSc, SM, SR, GR, and direct contrast can be identified.

 

bare the basis for your thinking, opinion out then, , for all to read.

 

Ah, OK, I thought it was perhaps related to your model. Might I suggest next time you start discussions about new subjects in a different thread? It's much less confusing, and leads to less convoluted threads.

I was obviously referring to time, not the universe (space) or your model's membrane.

That is an infinite future; it says nothing about the infinity of the past.

Perhaps in your model this may be true, but it certainly isn't a requirement for mainstream BB theory.

So you agree with me that your own statement "do not cut it"; good.

 

my model does not require splicing instructions for merging dimensions, any more that attaching world timelines requires explanations in mainstream representations

In the model, the infinity of the future , is the infinity of the past. there is only one infinity of time, not two. the expanding universe can not have possibly reached infinity of time, expansion yet., otherwise we would have Olber's paradox, starlight shining everywhere, day and night, what with new [dark energy] + dark matter appearing in the void of expansion. Or darkness from having spread to infinite thinness the finite energy and mass present at the BBB.

 

Because I believe the expanding Sphere membrane model is not in conflict with mainstream BB theory. Mainstream kicks in at the BB, the expanding sphere just keeps going. side by side.

 

It's a waste of time.

 

Deleted

 

It's a waste of time.

I'm afraid that the US deserves the leaders they elect quote/

both are a choice. to each her own.

 

I don't see how that follows? Worldlines are a natural consequence of the way objects act in spacetime in mainstream science; there are no new assumptions needed to introduce them. The concept of merging/splicing dimensions however is a new thing that requires explanation.

Sure, but that isn't necessarily true for BB theory.

True, but that doesn't mean time isn't infinite.

I don't think dark matter gets generated by the expansion of the universe.

That's called the heat death scenario, and you are right that we (obviously) haven't reached such a point (yet?).

Its terminology is.

That's because your model doesn't produce any quantitative predictions at the moment. There pretty much is nothing to compare.

 

nebel said: ↑
The purpose was to broaden the understanding of infinity as a manageable concept, it is not unthinkable, but hard to grasp for some. if not all,- truly.

The model requires infinite time, if for no other reason than to accommodate eventually an infinite size universe. The processes in, and to start the universe existing now in infinite time -- requires time to be also apportioned in near infinitely small length aka <planck time, so:
Not just as an aid to comprehension, but to properly define the model's time concept, both the range into the large and the small are emphasized. In addition the term timespace was coined to show time's all pervasiveness, lack of direction.
In the universe, the membrane, infinite time is occupied at a local scale.

The ESM is a geometric model. it has no equations. Quantitative predictions would and are in previous posts and be in
proportions: like doubling in size per first seconds, but not now, 2/3 of universe beyond present horizon,
shapes: funnels into black holes , spiral path of object proper motion, or radiation,
conditions: energy appearing, existing in void; character of infinite timespace; different aspects of past and future facing surfaces of the membrane.
In case quantitative, equations even, emerge from use of the model. more power to it.

Similarly, the appearing of the 3d universe, the 2d abstract membrane would be a natural consequence the way the universe acted at, in the BBB moment/point in timespace. The term "splicing" was a word picture (humourous like BB originally) to show the closeness of the 4 dimensions were it a linear, arrow type picture of the universe. There is no special otherworldly process in the model to have space take up time to form the universe. Space arrived and landed on time. touchdown. and keeps rolling on into the future.

 

Right, so it wasn't strictly related to the size of the universe. OK, sorry for the confusion.

No, those aren't predictions, those are assumptions. You have adjusted your model to fix those values, your model didn't predict them.
​

Those aren't quantitative predictions.

As I've said before: the membrane is 3D; it contains all space (at a particular moment in time), and our universe's space has three dimensions.

No, you cannot introduce a term without foundation, and then claim that it follows naturally from the model. Such an introduction literally is what an assumption is.

Yes there is: you claim that time merged with space at the BB to form our spacetime. That is a "special otherworldly process in your model".

Yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about. There is no known "touchdown"-process. You have to assume it is possible, while worldliness do not require any additional assumptions.

 

I am glad that you are assigning special status to the BBB event, while the model treats it just as another "entity taking up time process," going on now all the time.

 

allow me to define the model in my way. " yes we can." to misquote Obama.

 

The model, as it was presented, was a simple geometric construct, not all features were presented, or even present at that time. Your seeming naysayer, nit picking, but welcome comments, have helped us to flesh it out, These emergent features were inherent though unspoken within the model. As to
timespace becoming spacetime: The same process that started at the BBB is still in operation today, nothing otherworldly about it.
When you ver very little ( in the BBB, [you would not be here if you were not there] in some form), you started moving through time, into the pristine future. You are still doing the same now, same process. plus que ca change, plus que cela est la meme chose.
Choosing to use words from the three languages I am fluent in, if appropriate, like "ur.., eigen.., ueber.." is my privilege, have good precedents for that, might not be meeting your exacting standards, but makes for a colourful, full spectrum picture of the model. enjoy it. .

 

You are missing my point. You claim something happened for which there is no known mechanism. If you want to call such an event "special", sure, be my guest, but that doesn't excuse you from having to come up with a plausible explanation how it happened.

Please make sure you are not violating logic, which is what you seem to be doing here. Define your model by all means, but don't re-define terms such as "assumption".

Are you saying time is still merging with space even right now?

This seems to be unrelated to what we were talking about?