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

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by nebel, Dec 8, 2017.

  1. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    You can do better than that! The flatlanders in the membrane have all the 2D space they need with their 2D oxygen to breathe and-----.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    What is a "Changing membrane model"?

    So this "time" dimension you are talking about doesn't behave like a time dimension as defined by science. An important step for others to start working with your model is that they can understand what you mean. If you use familiar words and terms with non-standard definitions, this creates confusion. Can you please start using a different term for those?

    You haven't demonstrated that nothing sic can be warped by gravity.

    But then you are also adding a painted side (the nothing sic), that isn't a side like any other.

    If causality holds, and time travel isn't possible, we simply have no alternative then to look at the past to learn what the future might hold.

    This is actually a procedure that can be performed to some degree (look up "imaginary time"). However, the values of this time dimension then turn into complex numbers, and I'm not sure whether it'll work out for your model.

    By replacing the time dimension with a space-like dimension, you have lost the ability to meaningfully talk about the past and the future, or the arrow of time. Why do particles (for example, a light source radiating in all spatial direction) not travel towards the past-part of space? What is there to prevent it? You are currently using the shell theorem to prevent gravity from doing this (which by the way doesn't work fully, because the mass distribution in the shell isn't uniform: there are galaxies and empty space), but what is prevent photons from traveling inwards?

    (True, but usually in science, scientists test their owns ideas before making them public.)

    You were suggesting that humans, just as virtual particles, can exist in a realm where there is only a time dimension. Perhaps it was clumsy wording, or I misread it?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    Since in the model, all information comes from the past, and our combined memories, artifacts are carried forward through the "now" from the past, are well served to try to steer our future course by the past. That does not make us prophets though, Youth, like my 19 year old son undervalue the past.
    The possibility, that the time dimension is influenced at the interface of outward movement of the membrane is intriguing, apart from our consciouses reliance on the past experience to position ourselves for the future.

    because in the expanding model, the light sources radiate always out into the future, at a tangential direction, but that ray/particle stays inside the membrane though, because it's outwardly, into the future, the time dimension. The particle has an radial movement component imparted to its path too upon departure.
    This holds true too for the shrinking membrane, where the future is on the inside cavity. The particles will have inward momentum, have to stay in a path that is inside the shrinking membrane. negative tangents anyone? not in our universe!

    talking about the crunch phase of the universe would not make the model an expanding membrane, hence the generic term, Changing (size) membrane model.
    By readers inserting their preferred scientific terms into where I use (often deliberately ) street jargon, grappling with the application might help them to come up with better refutations. Such struggles always help me to really understand.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Yes, and this is also true in the current mainstream scientific models.

    But what does it mean that a "time dimension is influenced"? How can a dimension be influenced?

    Does this mean you are introducing a third type of dimension? There is the classical time and space, but also a third type that has an arrow of time, but acts like a space dimension? In other words, things can travel through it in only one direction (a time-like dimension feature), but otherwise it's a space-like dimension (so you can construct a spatial sphere)?

    Ah OK, got it.

    It also creates massive confusion.

    And it actively hinders (at least initially) the readers understand what you mean. Many will get frustrated and stop listening...
     
  8. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    In the model of a expanding spherical membrane, of course time would be an all encompassing realm. infinite in every which way. If you considered a section of the sphere, an expanding line, a departing particle would more clearly be seen following a tangent as it travels through the membrane on its way out. The so=-called arrow of time does not depend on increased entropy in the ESM model, it is the outward into the fure direction, no going back in other words. Expansion of the membrane dictates the direction of the radiation.

    sorry about that, but others will sympathise, as a rule, - in these populist ideas, readership falls in proportion to equations aka purely scientific terms used.
     
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    I'm interpreting that as a yes: you are postulating a third type of dimension: one with select features from both a time- and a space-dimension.

    True, but that doesn't justify using scientific terminology incorrectly. Not only are your ideas "too deep" for scientifically illiterate people to understand all the ramifications of, but due to the dodgy terminology scientifically literate people will also not understand.

    (That's one of the reasons I like to see mathematical derivations; doesn't matter what you call stuff, the maths still work in the same way!)
     
  10. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    It is easier for scientifically specialized people to come down from their ET heights, and look at a simple geometric concept than trying to pull others into the rarefied air of formulae that it takes years to master. This topic's , enlightening banter has come a long way, from an observation in Chile to the zillionfold expansion in the first seconds of the universe. Looking at the title, a new reader would not know what goes on. perhaps one day I will try another tack?

    Nebel said earlier: Since in the model, all information comes from the past, and our combined memories, artifacts are carried forward through the "now" from the past, are well served to try to steer our future course by the past.

    NotEinstein said: Yes, and this is also true in the current mainstream scientific models.

    so, Your past assertions, that the infinite time past and future of the Expanding Sphere Membrane model contradict all the current mainstream scientific models, were premature then?
     
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Perhaps, but if one isn't willing to invest the time and effort, why should scientifically specialized people?

    You have yet to give any evidence to support your assertions.

    I do recommend that you take everything that has been said in this thread to heart as constructive criticism, and write down your model in a single, coherent text. Even if you decide not to publish it, it will be a good exercise to see at what points there is friction between scientific terminology, theories, and models, and your own.

    No. It is only after I had to conclude that you were using various terms incorrectly, and started identifying the differences that your model started making some sense. The model as you originally stated it (without these alternative definitions of terms) is still completely contradictory to current mainstream models. Only modified with some of the changes I proposed does it even stand a chance of not violating very basic scientific and physical principles and concepts.
     
  12. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    I can not, like you imagine a infinite permittive condition , which does not contain infinite time for anything to be permitted to happen in. Time is of the essence, fundamental. Without it, nothing is permitted. within time the beginning of the Universe is permitted. (given enough energy)

    so, write4 you, how can you have an end of our universe, if you do not have time for the end to happen in? There must be time before, and after our universe, and even now outside it. How can you have a condition without time to have it in? what in your model, prevents time to exist independent of spaces in multiverses?
     
  13. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    I consider all replies as positive, and just try to go back as you said, to evaluate that and sort out the needless "I said -no I did not" banter,
    The question is what prevents time to be infinite, fundamental? and still work in our equations.?
     
  14. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    both the ballon and the bread have a center, center of mass for example. clearly our expanding universe has lost its BB origin center to the past, it is now all around us. that is the view you would expect along the balloon or bread surface. But none of that would have happened if time was not on hand during the process.
     
  15. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    Seattle, in your picture, how would time go on? would it not rather be that time as a dimension is stationary, and entities, go on, move. Shrink that infinite universe above to our size, and you still would have infinite time, us moving, expanding through it. temporarly.
     
  16. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    It the universe was smaller earlier in time , even being only a point way back, If we would assume a 3 D ball of sorts. any radiation leaving from from a given point on the surface, in any, or all directions, would it not take great circle routes back to its point of origin, that has now moved further away from its previous location? All roads lead to Rome, all photon paths lead back to it's origin in a closed universe, even it as now a "flat" geometry, after 13.8 years expansion that was ~10^15 greater in the past then now?
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    An infinite permittive condition which is not dynamic in and off itself is timeless.

    Time is a byproduct which instantiates at the moment of change and measures the duration of that change.
    Because time itself is not dynamical, it is a result.

    Tell me how can you measure time with time, without creating it? The permittive condition I speak of has no dimension at all, it is a void, the absence of everything. But it does not forbid dynamical movement or change from occurring. When there is nothing, it "allows" for everything.

    Note that I am saying that this permittive condition is "not causal" to anything, it is merely "permittive" of cause and effect, such as occurs I our expanding universe, which unfolds and creates not only its own timeline, but uncountable individual timelines as well.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2018
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Nothing is preventing it; we simply currently don't know for sure whether time is infinite or not. Just like we don't know whether space is infinite or not.

    If you assume a 3D ball of sorts, then this indeed becomes an option. If, however, you assume space is infinite and always was infinite (which is still a possibility) and mostly flat, then this is obviously not possible.

    (Careful: "closed universe" has a special meaning: a universe that's going to big crunch.)

    Yes, it's a possibility that the universe was highly curved back then, and has flattened out. However, a non-flat universe tends to become more non-flat over time; it's inflation that has flattened it out. You can read more about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem
     
  19. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    A very telling comment worth repeating.
    When I quoted "end of the universe" I meant that it happens in time that already exists. When the movement of the remnant of the universe would come to a halt. we could put a value on the duration, the 4st dimension traversed. The light year value would give a space length measurement.
    I see the condition that you so well describe as containing time, You can not have dynamic movement or change without having the time to do it in, can you? for your void, nothing to exist, and it is a view shared by many, one has to accept that time for it to happen was always there, time is more fundamental than our short view to our beginning allows.
    "Where there is nothing, it "allows" for everything," yes!,--but only if and when you have time for it. and nothing sic.
     
  20. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    nebel said: Messages are send into the future, received from the past--
    Ne, this is the confirmation you asked for earlier.

    Thank you for not letting me not misuse a scf term. getting to the crunching situation of the shrinking membrane, as it moves through time. The above truism we agreed on, would still apply. The emitted message would carry the momentum of the inward moving membrane, and have to follow the spiral path that the membrane's presence from moment to moment dictates. The future of the membrane would be smaller, so it would not be a tangential start, but inwardly toward the future, received from a larger sphere that was in the past. There must be a proper name for an anti-tangent like that.
    Pessimists would say "good riddance to the universe" that has now (after the conclusion of the big crunch) left a clean slate on the time dimension, , or the "permittive condition", as writ4you might say.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2018
  21. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    Yes it is all expanding outward, at different rates, but the overall directions, as for measuring the Hubble non "constant", assumes a geometric center from which all emerged. That the BB location is empty now, because the membrane of the model has moved on, does not make it less of a center, in a real sphere, it still would be the center of mass, without mass, even if there was never any gravity there. A center of gravity without gravity. grave.
    The fact that the former center seems to be around us, is seen in the expanding membrane model by the message about near it, the MBR, coming at us along the spiral path traced by the expanding spheres' membrane.
    The Opening post's question was, perhaps: could there have been more than one revolution or partial ones around the sphere in that long travel 43 billion light years distant in space.
     
  22. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    True, but that complicates your expanding sphere model; the sphere has to start contracting, seemingly switching the arrow of time. Additionally, things being send into the future also must follow this "first outwards, then turn around" path.

    Perhaps some word similar in meaning to "antiparallel"?

    I think the pessimists would have a lot of difficulty saying anything after their universe went through a big crunch.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    Of course, heading into a big crunch would spoil it for everybody, but once the membrane has started to contract, no more outward bound messages occur. Incoming messages from the distant expansion past do continue to spiral up and then down. You probably could not detect that that really ancient light was once heading into an expanding membrane with an outer future or how many great circle turns (if any) it had completed before detection.
    Thank you for the encouragement, and I am working on the understanding, but the suggested paper is not going to happen not with this intrepid young fellow ending his 9st decade. Besides, it is not like the US patent office, where anybody can file an application, and I know already that a prior art search would show that the idea was "patented", or published in the 18 hundreds, giving credit where credit is due.
     

Share This Page