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. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Yes, that's what I wrote. And if you try to stretch it any further when it's already tight, either nothing happens or (if the force is great enough) the cable breaks.

    No, because it doesn't change in height. If you add length to the cable, it'll curl up/around a bit, but it'll stay within the membrane. A cable curls up/around in space, not in time.

    Well, within your model, it's simply as you already hinted at: the gap will be the size of the additional circumference due to the growing of the radius.

    Yes you are. Classically, centrifugal forces only work for objects spinning in space, the entire universe spinning. Additionally, they need all vectors to be in space, not time. Look at the general derivation of such forces:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force#General_derivation
    All terms in there are space coordinates. Time only appears as space coordinate derivates with respect to time. In your model, the radius is a time coordinate, so the classical general derivation of fictitious forces doesn't apply. Conclusion: you need to re-define centrifugal forces to allow for such cases.

    Yes, but the radius of Saturn and its rings isn't a time coordinate; it's a space coordinate.

    I think you made a writing mistake in that last bit there?

    It's a nice example of a rotating system, yes, but it's hardly comparable to your model. It's Saturn that's rotating, not the spacetime it is in.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    Your supposition is incorrect. the post specifically mentions a entity adjacent to the membrane projecting into the future. (A possibly abstract construct like your worldlines in a now empty past) The question is about the kind of expansion through time, the radius, would experience by a 50 foot expansion of the membrane to reach the cables position, .
    In other words: does the 50 foot circumference to 8 foot radius ratio hold for the membrane of any size, cable or not?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    think again, google please orbital velocity, rotational velocity Saturn, both ~ 10 km/second but in opposite directions on the day side. and yes,
    The membrane is not rotating nor, is the circumference measuring rope. The 8 foot gap (or not) sustained (or not) against even simple Newtonian gravity by whatever means necessary.
    The ESM model opens the possibility that there is a profound difference how the universe's mass influences the future time outside it,- to the time receding into the past. (future being on the roped in side)
    The universe's mass influences time inside the membrane, so, who is to say it does not also do so at the surface outside ?
    After all, there is nothingsic outside the universe, and also time to move into. so:
    If nothing can create the mass of the universe, in good time, how is it impossible that the same condition that are still outside the universe not be influenced by it ? reciprocally?
    We know, that is not what 'what you me call it' teaches, but then, could that mean ESM to be an alternate theory waiting in the wings? justifying its discussion here?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    This being about the funnel picture reaching back toward, not into the Big Bang point in time. The membrane, and the picture, even if repurposed, shows a good partial representation of of the membrane. The total membrane would curve all the way around the bottom, 360 degrees, all BH funnels pointing toward the BB. central point in time.
    The membrane is not isotemporal, so that all clocks show the same time since the BB, but, all points on it show the distance they have moved through time since the BB. Time travel for the Black Hole was cut short, when gravity made it to stop on the radius. ( Movement through Time stops in max gravity). The picture shown is incomplete, it does not show the end of the radius, all the way BB of course, way short. In the above illustration to the point [in time] of the original singularity.(quote from text above) where it got stuck on the radius.
    Above illustration copy/pasted, repurposed for the ESM model. (credit where credit is due) The ESM model holds, even in relativity representation.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2018
  8. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    Shell theorem
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In classical mechanics, the shell theorem gives gravitational simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a spherically symmetrical body. This theorem has particular application to astronomy.
    no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell. (quote)

    In the ESM model. the inside of the shell.membrane the empty past has no impact on the time or timespace there, but that is not so for the future, that the membrane/ universe is moving into, assuming that newtonian, relativistic conditions apply even though all mass is confined to the membrane itself.
     
  9. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In this copied image (credit due) can be envisioned the spiral pass of an object, message, radiation moving within the Expanding Sphere Membrane model. represented here as a 2D great circle slice.
    Messages are sent out into the future, but received from the past, inside.
    A message might be send from point D from the older sphere, - smaller, membrane / universe, the inner circle , - on a tangent, into the future. the outside.
    As the membrane expands through time toward the outer size circle, the message, or object follows the pass of the elliptical spiral in the heavy line. to be seen, intercepted there at point B again in a tangential direction , but coming from the time of the past, inside.
    The object, message, has traversed time in the radial dimension from CD to CB. In scale to the universe, ~ 7 billion [light] years. (in the model, the universe/ membrane has doubled its radius.
    Point H is shown, to illustrate, that at all times, the view of the object or radiation, message, was as coming in a tangential direction, inside the expanding membrane only. Point H is on an intermediate stage of the expanding universe/membrane, not traced out as a circle in this illustration. ( an ellipse might be a distortion of the realistic path).
    refutations please.
    The Expanding Sphere Membrane model, flight through timespace without formula.
     
  10. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    --------click to expand to read. click.
    To elaborate on this. The unstretchable, unbreakable steel rope would be considered part of the universe ( no alien's artifacts here), an extra extension of the membrane. It would hover above the outer surface of membrane, unless the mass of the universe exerts no gravitational force out, in which case , not need your 8 feet posts. but why would the universe/membrane be exempt from throwing it's weight around in form of gravity?

    In the model, the future is affected by the now, the present , present in the membrane. (and in reality)
    The future is time, timespace, outside the membrane.
    the ESM model holds.
    refutations please.
     
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    So something without a physical nature. That's thus not a cable: a cable always is a physical entity.

    If I interpret your question correctly, I believe it does, because that's what the math shows.
    Ah, I got confused. We were talking about a rotating universe before, and I didn't realize we're apparently not anymore.

    No, the rope doesn't need to sustain itself against Newtonian gravity; it needs to sustain itself against "Nebelian" gravity.

    For it to be a proper theory, it'll need to make quantitative predictions that can be tested. Without those, it's impossible to say whether it's a better of the universe than the current mainstream theories.

    Right, so you agree with me that you've repurposed the picture, and that it isn't proof that black holes reach back in to the past under the mainstream scientific interpretation of it.

    This is yet to be demonstrated. Your model so far has produced no quantitative predictions, so it's impossible to compare it to the relativistic representation. For example, in Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, the black hole "reaches" into the future! http://images.slideplayer.com/35/10458300/slides/slide_16.jpg This is the exact opposite of what you are claiming; how do you resolve this apparent contradiction?
     
  12. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    I can not argue with that, anything that reaches into the future is good news for me. but: Is it not White Holes that reach into the future? I have seen representations of that. I refer you to post 464, which carries not my word, but those of the original author . (I am appealing to authority too, but you dazzled me with those equations), mine is flight through time without formula.

    I always like it when we agree , all my posted illustrations are repurposed ( I used to do my own patent drawings, not any more) but please read the accompanying texts which are not mine. It says exactly that the singularity reches back in time, "downward toward the past" which in the ESM model means back in the radial direction, partway toward the BB. BH s are stuck in time.
    Ps: so even the BH stuck in times past is not an original idea either, has been mainstream all along.
    The idea of a rotating membrane/universe is not part of the ESM model, it was only mentioned to sustain that rope without needing intervention., like the rings of Saturn which turn just fine.

    You said it, not I, the ESM model leaves open the possibility that Newtonian and relativistic effects reach into the future. Timespace is affected in that direction by mass and energy. thank you.

    For the purpose of the calculation, (which is correct you agree? ) an abstract construct rope would do. I stated that the cable would be part of the universe, membrane, made from its materials, even steel, which would be affected by any magnetism generated by the membrane material. . Magnetism with an 8 foot reach. Gravity with an 8 foot reach. ESM characteristics. Inviting you to comment on that. thank you.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2018
  13. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Not using this interpretation; the light cone of any observer within the event horizon of a black hole will have that black hole in its future cone, not its past cone.

    Wait, I thought you made that picture, because there's not attribution?

    Yes, and the lack of any equations betrays the immaturity of your model. That's not a good thing.

    Without any attribution or reference to where this picture came from, I cannot comment on it. It might have been produced by a very well-known cosmologist, or by a confirmed crazy person.

    The need for the rope to sustain itself is a result of your model, not of the mainstream scientific view.

    Yes, as I mentioned before, you are re-defining a lot of terms, introducing a lot of effects for which there is no evidence, and claims various happenings for which you cannot provide any mechanism for them to happen. This results in a lot of things your model needs to address that do not exist in the mainstream scientific models. This needs to sustain a rope against gravity being one.

    You are missing my point: while the rope is hypothetical, it has to be a physical entity within the model. I don't even know what an abstract rope would be like.

    Is the membrane made of a material, or are you referring to the material contained within the membrane?

    Magnetism has an infinite reach.

    Gravity has an infinite reach.

    If ESM predicts that magnetism and/or gravity has only an 8 foot reach, it is trivially demonstrably false. In fact, you've already mentioned the rings of Saturn, which is a perfect counter-example!

    (I suspect you didn't mean that, but I cannot parse your sentences in any other way...)
     
  14. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    There is no other material, and yes, the rope would be analogues to the rings of Saturn , or better the stringy ones of other planets.and since the universe is not rotating as far as we know, to demonstrate the correct math, propping up would be required. unless you can think of a new term to describe a cause for levitation.
     
  15. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    As I said before: I'm not even sure that's properly defined. What does it mean for spacetime to be rotating? Rotating with respect to what?

    This is only true in your model; in the mainstream scientific one, no propping up would be required, as there is no force pulling at the cable.

    You are the one introducing the need for levitation; I suggest you name it.
     
  16. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    NotEinstein, sorry I meant, but did not include "demonstrable" 8 foot reach, , "minimum" 8 foot range, but thank you for extending that possible ESM effect.

    respectfully, no, Any rope, cable around a sizeable object would not sustain itself at that heights, above the outer surface without support, unless like the rings of---

    The artwork was grabbed from google "images" , could see no attribution, and: confirmed crazy persons can have astounding artistic talents, even while working for [future] well known cosmologists.

    " White Hole"
    Of course, if you are within the event horizon, or the Schwartzschild radius in the membrane, your light cone, worldline is defining a bleak future. The image and the model is assuming you are looking from a detached observer, somewhere in timespace.

    "timespace " or "nebelian gravity" that this model helped conjure up. You must give us credit, at least for originality, for a visionary model assembled out of existing and accepted ideas.
     
  17. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    nebel: I stated that the cable would be part of the universe, membrane, made from its materials, even steel, which would be affected by any magnetism generated by the membrane material.
    .QUOTE="NotEinstein, post: 3502635, member: 286668"]Is the membrane made of a material, or are you referring to the material contained within the membrane?[/QUOTE]

    To be analogues to the zero time length "now", the membrane has to be thought of as of zero thickness. All matter, all energy in the universe is assumed to be contained in it, is not forged from it though. it is just thought to be there. That does not preclude the possibility that its effects could extend outwardly as in the real world. A rope extending out from it, (and to be part of it, would essentially of the same substance too, having magnetism, gravity.
     
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    So your point was that forces with infinite reach can bridge a 8 foot gap? Well, sure.

    False. We are talking about a rope free-floating in space, circling the universe (with positive curvature) exactly once, and it being pulled tight. There are no (net) forces pulling on the rope, and there is no height. In this scenario, using mainstream science, there is nothing that needs sustaining. This need only exists in your model.

    So you are admitting that you stole it, and are now not giving a link so I can figure out the context in which it was originally posted?

    You have missed my point: the context in which the figure was posted it quite important for its proper interpretation.

    False; the light cone here works perfectly locally. An observer inside the event horizon would also see the black hole's center at its future, no matter what path the observer is going to take.

    I have just given an example of where your model seems to conflict directly with established mainstream science. If you cannot resolve the conflict, we can safely conclude that your model is wrong.

    Who is this "us"?

    Originality doesn't earn you any points in science; correctness does.

    This doesn't answer my question. I will repeat it: "Is the membrane made of a material, or are you referring to the material contained within the membrane?"
     
  19. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    There is no other material, and yes, the rope would be analogues to the rings of Saturn , or better the stringy ones of other planets.and since the universe is not rotating as far as we know,
    I never suggested timespace to be rotating, it is the rope that would have to be rotating to sustain itself, and I asked from the beginning to wedge it up? remember?

    Cables strung above the Earth, needs serious support in mainstream science, see "pilons" , so think of the support needed above the gravity of the whole universe, but then, the surface gravity might not be overwhelming, given its size and low average matter content.

    It was your reluctance to acknowledge the gap, and need wedges, posts, that brought the thought of your magical levitation, I always asked for size of wedges, posts. as posted.

    Albert could have said it takes a lot of Sitzfleisch to answer all your, sometimes frankly silly attempts at refutations. ha ha. some are really appreciated serious, seriously though. well read too.
     
  20. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    In a simulation, that is always done by mainstream science on [computer] models, such a rope, once tight around a sphere, adding 50 feet would have to lifted 8 feet to be of the surface everywhere, there would be massive forces acting on it. we assume here that the whole universe is inside the membrane, not spread through 13.7 light years of mostly empty space, the surface gravity on the outside surface would be massive, make that a very thin rope to even think of lifting it the required 8 feet.

    no, I did not steal it it had no copyright source attached even then, copying would be "fair usage" for educational purposes (you). Stealing is a hard accusatory word, inappropriate in this context imho.

    The artists, and all those from who's writings,]reading I have condensed this model.

    thin
    It might turn out to be correct in many aspects, in many instences (due to your help). Am I supposed to collect points? think of the Gaia hypothesis, does not contain any e= mc"2 type equations either.

    Your question presents a logical fallacy, the membrane is an abstract purely geometrical construct, it is neither made of, nor literally containing anything material. how could it at zero thickness???, but for the model's purpose,(defined as it is), it has all those properties of the universe embodied in it.

    I can not place any light cones in the "funnel to singularity into the past" figure. Please provide an equivalent illustration with the light cone pointing into the future.. to show what we are talking about. ( we will excuse any stealing and repurposing) bsw.
    PS: to repeat: this a purely geometric model. if you introduce time cones, world lines to it fine, welcome, but provide visuals for us so we can relate and comment.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2018
  21. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    NoEinstein, perhaps this image ( credit above) is what would be a basis for the light cone of a person from within the event horizon? but:


    The below model's viewpoint is as for this (unrelated) image from post #3 from outside the membrane/universe.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

    Attached Files:

  22. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Here is another image copied for fair use and repurposed to show the extent of the visible universe on the ESM model surface. The radius shows the time traversed since the Big Beginning. `13,8 billion years. That is also the length projected left and right unto the top of the sphere to define heavy the line circling the sphere. Looking along the surface that line would be ~ the limit of the horizon, the CBMR. Apparent reason for this is, that you could not look back into a further distance than to the origin. Or receive radiation that is older than the universe , the radius. The thatched area below the black circle is the part of the universe that is now beyond our horizon.

    prediction of the Expanding Sphere Membrane model: 2/3 of the universe is beyond our view.
    refutations please.

    No, you could not. It would take another 5 more ages of the universe to have the images come around to us from the other side. According to the model. ~80 billion years now to see the back of your head, too late to get that hair just right.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2018
  23. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    You are the one that brought it up in your post #456.

    Again, it is only in your model that this is needed; you are the one that needs to answer this question.

    As I said in post #475, that is not what we are talking about: "We are talking about a rope free-floating in space, circling the universe (with positive curvature) exactly once, and it being pulled tight."

    Which is a concept that is valid in your model, but doesn't exist as such in the mainstream scientific one.

    So, it's not needed after all to prop up the cable?

    Reluctance is the wrong word; there were conceptual unclarities that needed to be resolved before the gap could be discussed in proper context.

    I'm sorry, you are the one that's claiming levitation is needed. In mainstream science, a cable would hover in an otherwise empty spacetime just fine, even if it is expanding.

    And as I don't see the need for them, I won't be able to give any details about them. You are the one that keeps bringing them up.

    Don't you think that your impression that my valid concerns are "silly" is a big hint that you often have no idea what you are talking about?

    You want silly? OK, here's one for you: take this cable scenario we've been talking about. Let's say that there are no wedges, and thus the cable will be pulled into the past. Calculate the energy content of the universe before and after the cable gets pulled into the past. Obviously, it reduces (by the energy of the cable). Your model violates conversation of energy. Now, isn't that just silly? Here you are claiming it's compatible with the theory of relativity, and yet even the most basic understanding of physics is enough to refute that.

    Please point out which one you find "silly", and I will demonstrate that you are wrong about them being not serious.

    See, this is what I mean. You have no idea what positive spacetime curvature is; the cable isn't going in a circle; it's straight. It's space that is curved.

    Copyright is automatic; it doesn't need to be stated in order for it to apply.

    Without an attribution, it most certainly is considered stealing by many countries.

    If you are talking about the artist of the picture: I can't give him/her credit, because you've chosen not to attribute the picture to its author. I literally don't know who its creator is; you are the one denying the artist the due credit.

    Why don't you actually find out? Please make some quantitative predictions that can be compared to experimental data.

    (It's just a figure of speech.)

    Wrong. Look at one of the original papers: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1974.tb01946.x/epdf
    I can see several formula in there, some even with derivatives in them! Much more mathematically complicated than \(E=mc^2\). They even contain entropy, which is a pretty complicated and mathematical subject.

    What fallacy? Please name it.

    So your answer is that you were referring to the material contained within the membrane. Why was it so complicated for you to simply answer that question? Why all the misdirection?

    Why would that be necessary?

    I have already shown what I am talking about, so I don't see why I should show it again?

    You are not authorized to give out "get out of jail free" cards.

    If you cannot conceptualize a light cone without needing a picture, then you are woefully unequiped to deal with spacetime.

    No, you have clearly not understood what a light cone is. Please learn what a light cone is before making uninformed comments like that.

    Which is (as I pointed out to Write4U) impossible, as there is no "outside" the universe.
     

Share This Page