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 Valued Senior Member

    , never suggested timespace to be rotating
    Light cone from the viewpoint of where? post a diagram to show the geometry, we are all waiting. we could be arguing endlessly about that. light cones have a starting point and it makes a lot of difference, . , particularly in the vicinity of a black hole. so, point it out. A picture will be worth a thousand words. All our looks are into the past. bsw.

    The logical fallacy question was: what is the zero thickness membrane made of. answer: a zero plane has no place to place anything to be made of.It si not just a logical fallacy, because there is no real answer, it is also among the "silly" assertions made.

    even with the variable of a low surface gravity, you would need spacers props to get that 8 ft measurement of a rope already in the future, waiting for the membrane to catch up with it.

    What countries? yours? The US has "fair usage laws" read them. Google XYZ images has these pictures ( without attribution) in the purposely public domain. The authors would have them removed if they objected. You are a public prosecutor only in your imagination. (silly)

    In the simulation, in my model, allow it to be defined by me as we go along,
    The cable would be of the same stuff and dimension as the membrane. The mass and energy content of the (membrane +- -+ the cable) would be constant. and when it is lifted off the surface radially, it goes into the future portion of timespace. not the past. The cable would be already in the future, waiting for us to catch up***.

    This is not equivalent to empty space time, this is existing close to the mass of a massive entity, the universe. no stringy entity exists near a gravity well in mainstream science without sustainsion , by orbital velocity for example .

    We were not talking about an outside POV of the universe, but of a model. or two.
    That could be considered a "silly" , pointless objection, semantics. quiveling about definitions, sentence structure.
    It is understood by all viewers. when one talks about the model, or the universe being viewed, discussed.
    you are not helping your credibility, which is sad, because in general your comments are helpful, even if they sometimes seem to feign ignorance.

    ***re: again NE said: 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:

    thank you NE for posting that scenario, helping thus to define Expanding Silly Membrane Model.
    In the solution I obviously assumed that the cable would not be expanding after deployment as the membrane does, otherwise the membrane would never catch up in time[space] with the cable position. an 8 foot gap forever!. Neat feature though, like a kelp cutter on some of our California Craft.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I don't think I have ever said that. I believe I said that the universe is "permitted" to expand infinitely due to a pre-existing permittive condition. With that I am not proposing a pre-existing space, merely a condition which allows for the expansion of the universe.

    But I have another question regarding the this model:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    IF the universe is as shown, then from our known information we should be able to calculate the center of the universe, i.e. the BB. This may lie beyond our ability to observe, but could still be calculated from available observable geometric information, no?

    Personally I do not think the universe is a perfectly spherical object, due to gravitational distortions.

    IOW, I see the universe as a geometric "manifold" (a monster sphere), which would indeed make it impossible to find it's center.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. nebel Valued Senior Member

    well said. The model sees the universe, membrane, the violet thing above expand through time from the center. Because time is here considered fundamental, infinite, and is making possible virtual events, zero sum energy balances, the term timespace was coined to allow for that. not your view? fine.
    yes, and the model proposes, that the purple hollow sphere has a radius of 13.8 light years, but that is not measured because of the model, but by capable astronomers. but
    interestingly in the model, if you use your calipers, and proscribe that radius of 13.8 light years from the top point around the sphere, which is shown by the dark latitude line, the model indicates we can see only 1/3 of the universe between us and the CBMR fog. (see text)

    Absolutely correct. The model has a theoretical abstract basic shape, but the radius varies for every entity on that sphere, a very interesting landscape indeed. even features deep Black Hole funnels ( see post# 464 above) stuck in past time radius.
    The model accommodates Special Relativistics effects, it did not simply start out that way, but with help from you friends, there it is.

    Of course the universe is not a hollow sphere, that modelling is just to be able to visualise, and visualise, manipulate effects
    There is now no center to the universe, we are as much in the center as anybody else, up to 41.5 light years away either way,pictured on the bottom of that purple sphere up there. After all we were as energy in the center of the universe once, how else would we have gotten here? but now, the ceter is everywhere, but when you look up or updown as in Australia, we seem to be centered in the universe, because we were once. woth everybody else that is watching.
    The ESMM makes that easier to visualize, looking along the membrane, still getting messages from the past. thank you.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. nebel Valued Senior Member

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

    If I may give my 2 cents worth. : given all that,
    in the ESMM, time is assumed to be infinite and fundamental. With it came a nothing, void that had virtual events, zero energy sum potential loosely labelled as timespace. Through which the universe/membrane has moved since the Big Beginning , a point in eternal timespace.
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Except you did, in post #9:
    (That was not what I was referring to.)

    (The picture doesn't load for me. Can you post it again? I'm not comfortable commenting without seeing the picture first.)
  9. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Comments on images on this thread:
    Nebel said:"I have seen representations of that. I refer you to post 464, which carries not my word, but those of the original author
    The artwork was grabbed from google "images" , could see no attribution,"

    but it copied " from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" (full image). I pasted that in good faith with no personal gain as an objective, later discovered that the text actually overed the very subject I tried to explain to critical viewers. No wonder it was the most appropriate of hundreds to choose from.
    then this:
    I believe calling me a thief on this "fair use" in these cases, is an uncalled for tactic in an attempt to discredit another member' expressed opinions.

    Most authors might be very pleased to have their work reappear under different guises, without plagiarism. for example,
    Who would have thought that an expression coined in 1884, namely "flatlander" would be used (without attribution) by a late octogenarian to illustrate how Special Relativity is reflected in his model ESM.?
    P.S. some of the nearly fitting images up for choice, were "watermarked" by their creators to identify the sources, but most were just in the gallery of public google/wiki domain.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
  10. nebel Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    fair use / courtesy google 1/3 sphere images. credit where credit is due.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    OK, please change to read "looking at a model of the universe......etc.
    There was no implied physical ability to view the universe from outside it.​
    nebel likes this.
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Thank you.
    OK, lets assume your "infinite timespace" is greater than a "finite but expanding spacetime".

    I don't want to quibble about terms, however the inclusion of the word "space" in the term "timespace' is not necessarily a geometric configuration. It might well be an abstract propertyless condition.
    OTOH, the term "spacetime" is defined as a geometric construct, where space coordinates are always associated with a point in time. But the space coordinates must become manifest, before they can assume a countable value of time.

    Can we ask this ; without space why should there be time?

    It sounds logical that if there is no space, then no time can be associated with that condition and time becomes a meaningless measurement.

    Geometric space, change, motion, duration are fundamental to the manifestation of time, an invention of the human mind. In physical reality they are just recurring patterns, the duration of which can be approximated by the human invention of relevant (GR) time frames.

    Ockham's razor.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
  13. nebel Valued Senior Member

    You said it better than I. When I think of the possible infinite time, it has to be without discrete direction, it is infinite into the past, the endless future, and up down left and right, if you assume that we are receiving messages from the time past as we scan everywhere. So, I must think of time as being omnipresent, all pervasive. so
    When I started to use the term timespace, it was to highlight the priority that the 4st dimension demands. It was to accentuate that spacelike, but dimensionless, directionless aspect. Time being thought of as fundamental. The idea, that the void, the vacuum has always contained virtual activity, zero sum energy, makes the coexistence of time a necessity with all that. imho.
    That this void has to be pre- BB is a real necessity, The ESMM assumes that it is still all around the universe model, and could even be the void that is thought to be opening up between the mass conglomerates in the accelerated universal expansion. That being so, because the void carries with it dark energy to possibly fuel that new push outward into the future. . In the ESM model time[space] assumed to be everywhere.

    Because if there were these condition, potentials, possibilities, latent tensions,- talked about now seriously,- in the void or the so-called nothing, that always existed, then time had to be present. A fluctuation, (virtual or real) is an acceleration which has the time factor squared in it. In the model, time is not just a measurement of movement, but a distinct pre-existing dimension.

    The term timespace does not imply measurement requirements. The point in time where the BB started is not described in the model to be xyz from other points distant from the BB in timespace. so, in your spacetime thinking (and it is not wrong, it is appropriate) , time is a measurement of duration. In the model, time is not a measurement,
    it is the theater, the field on which everything plays out.

    In the model, Time is not a human construct, confined to this planet since there are human thoughts on geometry. It is an essential ingredient of any existence, any entity or process that ever happened. Our universe moves through time, the universe represented by that zero thickness Expanding Sphere Model.

    What is simpler, more likely, having 4 dimensions appear out of nothing, or having 3 dimensions appear because it was time for it to happen? thank you for the questions.

    off topic P.S. Hope all goes well, when the time comes. 6 hours from now, in spacetime (pun intended) , at the space center, Merritt Island, when transportation will take on another meaning toward Mars. I miss the noise.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
    Write4U likes this.
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    That was a very persuasive argument, and in principle I do agree with the position that if any condition exists that has or is a property of something which endures, an associated time frame would necessarily have to be at least a result of that endurance.

    There are still some abstract philosopical questions about that in my mind may make things clearer, but I'll have to give that serious consideration before I can try to put these as a logical arguments.

    But you have indeed spurred me to delve deeper. I thank you for that.
  15. nebel Valued Senior Member

    I would suggest you put those up as questions, even if the subject matter is not clear yet. Consider that this whole thread started with an naive question, and ended up constructing a model to answer it. and the answer was no, but the model stands. sofar. waiting for more attempts to be toppled.
    taking of toppling, congrats to space ex, returns did not topple. very impressive launch. going forward.
    Write4U likes this.
  16. nebel Valued Senior Member

    We thought that was your equations, where is the attribution? copyrights? **
    **in all fairness, we assume that all material copied has been cleared for publication, jumped through all the hoops, from Eddington, Finkelstein to the publishers and ultimate paste. .
    re: light cones: still waiting, but
    In general, the model has a light circle, it embraces the 1/3 black "latitude" line in post 487 prepared for you. The whole panorama, 360 degrees includes everything back to the CBMR. it seems to face the future, but really is receiving messages from the past. In the membrane "flatlander" view, there are no light cones, but light angles.
    These are emanating form entities, like the northern hemisphere, looking one way, the antipodes the other, two different light angles in the membrane, but part of the total area defined by the 360 degrees, "latitude" R=13.8 billion lightyear circle.
    As to to a narrow narrow slit light angle coming out of that BH funnel in post 464.:
    Yes that angle opens into the future direction in time, up into the radius, from the POV of the BH denizen, ( and there is the elegance of the model) , but
    she receives messages from the rest of the universe/membrane only coming from the past. By the time the dweller in the funnel sees it, it is already too late to do anything about it, history might be over. so,
    like above, feel free to keep sending us links copied from google "images", such as light cones/ angles inside black hole funnels please .
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
  17. nebel Valued Senior Member

    re: re-defining light cone.
    In the ESM model, the sphere is not a full volume ball, similarly, the Black Hole funnel , cone, stuck on the time radius,
    is not a solid, full volume filled, center to circle bottom space, but
    the skin or membrane defining an open cone.
    In the case of the Black Hole denisen, really a series of light angles segments comprising that funnel.
    While the open space of that cone volume opens into the future, the observer, looking back at her fatal fall into the event horizon, is looking at her', and the universe's past, along the curving membrane,- as it develops, quickly.
    picture a light funnel, the zero thickness skin, membrane of a cone.

    so, as NE asserted, "the light cone faces into the future" , but
    the combined light angles making up the black hole funnel do not.
    In a sense there is nothing special about the funnel versus the rest of the membrane. The whole shebang is facing into the future, ever since the b. bang
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Ever heard of international law?

    Have you? Are you saying uploading a copy of an image without attribution is "fair use"?

    Please point out to me where it says this image is in the public domain:

    In fact, Google has this to say on this particular image: "Images may be subject to copyright." How did you interpret that to mean it's in the public domain?

    No, an artist not taking down illegal copies of their images (or link to their images) doesn't void their copyright.

    I'm not prosecuting you: I'm trying to teach you how not to commit illegal activities. Perhaps you are right, and that was silly of me to attempt.

    Mathematical equations cannot be copyrighted. As far as I know, they do not need attribution, because they are in the public domain once published.

    But more importantly: are you accusing me of violating copyright law? Are you aware of the word "libel"? Also, it's like you calling a grey kettle black: you copied (hey, that looks very similar to "copyright". I wonder if they are connected?) a picture and re-published it under your name (your account here, no attribution that it was made by somebody else, or based on a picture made by somebody else, or even a link to the original). All I did was post a link to a previously published image.

    However, let me add the attribution: the picture I linked to in post #468 comes from a presentation given by Chad A. Middleton in 2008, named: "Black Holes and the Einstein-Rosen Bridge: Traversable Wormholes?" I note that in all these posts, you haven't given Adrian Wonoto the same courtesy. For someone banging on about giving people due credit, you appear to be a very big hypocrite.

    That doesn't void copyright; please learn copyright law.

    That doesn't void copyright; please learn copyright law.

    That doesn't void copyright; please learn copyright law.
    That doesn't void copyright; please learn copyright law.
    That doesn't void copyright; please learn copyright law.
  19. nebel Valued Senior Member

  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    So you used his work, without even knowing it was his? And you claim you want to credit artists!

    (Does the US law actually apply to

    But what does it say about attribution? Are you allowed to use another persons work, unmodified, without attribution?

    How did you not know this? Where did you get this image from otherwise?

    So because other people are breaking the law, it's OK for you to do so as well?

    So it's OK to do illegal stuff, if people doing such things in the past haven't been stopped?

    I have "singled you out" because you did it right in front of me, claiming that artists deserve credit without crediting its author.

    I'm not basing my treatment on your name; I'm basing it on your actions.
  21. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Image created by Adrian Wonoto

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (c) Adrian Wonoto, of Jakarta Indonesia from his paper, "Flatland Universe". July 30, 2012.
  22. nebel Valued Senior Member

    That is just the point. I did not pass these good examples off as mine. I have given all these creators credit, the fact that they were/are unknown to me does not diminish the respect and gratitude I have for them and their work. My not naming them stems purely from my inability to trace them from the information at hand, and my limitation. Indeed you have singled me out, because if you like to witch hunt, go after all the other good faith, fair use copy and pasters here. and
    No, I do not have educate myself in all the fine print technicalities of copy law world wide. In North America fair use is an establish open practise.
    If I need help, I know where to get it,
    In my previous intellectual property work I had engaged the offices of the law firm of a previous head of state in my country. plenty of educated people there.
    key word: Fair usage.
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Not trying to stir the pot further, I do have a question: What does the phrase "May be subject to copyrights" mean exactly?

    Is it protected or not? We know it may be. But it does not specifically state that it is, does it?
    Where did this semi-qualification come from? Does it address the entire work or just parts of it?
    Moreover, does the material have any monetary value ?

    So, does this mean before I copy and paste a picture from the internet, in the course of a conversation, should I or should I not first consult with the author or publisher if it is indeed protected?

    Would it not be easier to drop the "may" and just tell us if it is. Seems to me that would clear up any doubts.

    Is it possible that the publisher doesn't know either? How then can it be published?
    Oh easy, we just add that the material may be covered, but how does that get the publisher off the hook?

Share This Page