ALMA sees old galaxies before they merged. two ways to look back into the past?
- Thread starter nebel
- Start date
True, I consider time the blank page that events are written on. If you have material or ideas that are relevant to the OP, look back time, please offer them here.
copied and pasted from the "isotropic" thread:
true, while it is a play on words with the Einstein's coined term spacetime, it would tentatively describe the pre - Big Bang condition, where there clearly must have been time, but not space as we know it inside the universe.
I was referring to the 3D space part in spacetime, which started at the Big bang, so by that fact alone could not be infinite, If it is expanding in size, it can not be infinite either. It is definitely expanding into timespace, because all the clocks are showing bigger accumulated values, sums of time. so, yes,
time, timespace, energytime are infinite, spacetime is not imho.
bold added
true, while it is a play on words with the Einstein's coined term spacetime, it would tentatively describe the pre - Big Bang condition, where there clearly must have been time, but not space as we know it inside the universe.
I was referring to the 3D space part in spacetime, which started at the Big bang, so by that fact alone could not be infinite, If it is expanding in size, it can not be infinite either. It is definitely expanding into timespace, because all the clocks are showing bigger accumulated values, sums of time. so, yes,
time, timespace, energytime are infinite, spacetime is not imho.
Events to keep track of events , history etc . This does not prove time actually exists .
The essence of time is movement . Without movement there is no duration hence time .
well, I, at a happy 87 are sitting here, not moving, (going at 1ooo km backward in rotation the day and going forward 30 km sec forward in orbit , then around the galaxy, approaching Andromeda), moving out from the big Bang (along radius #4 #5.), all through time. yet time exists whether we move through it or not.
It is true, time appears in our velocity equations.(what would we do without it?) but time is of the essence, fundamental, not a creation of movement. Even a stationary entity can not exist without time to exist in. thank you. profound to find.
Duration comes from the french word "dur", hard, durable, not transitory, fleeting, like linked to movement only.
Last edited:
Time is the consequence of movement .
Duration is the movement of an object , without measure .
Can we assume then that movement is fundamental? there always was movement of sorts? like in the "Dirac Sea" ?
Yes, a fossil like dinosaur's imprints, photons from the early universe, are durable they have managed to be in the presence #3 after having travelled through time from the earlier, smaller universe, like size #8 that exists no more, was in that form not durable.
In the 1930, he advanced a model of Pre- Big Bang mechanics in which a sea of energetic (supposedly 0 sum energy) particles emptied through a "Dirac hole" to result in the positive energy, positive mass universe. Please google for the formulae.
This probably was an early version of the now fashionable "virtual particles" popping in and out of existence in the pre- Big Bang void #1.
The point being, that serious thinkers conceived of motion , therefore time before the beginning of mattertime. However
In the Expanding through time Sphere Model of this thread, , time is not a movement, but a static "Block".( as mentioned in the BBC article above) existing whether anything moves through it or not. thank you.
abstract in the sense that it is not concrete, material. My concept after looking at the model is time as fundamental, and of course non - material, but not immaterial. ( time does not raise it's ugly head just only if there is movement). Time is required even before an entity moves, and then it is required to the second power, as in acceleration t^2.
The Model shows time #1 as infinite. as energytime, (because Energy must be infinite too, since it can not be created) existing in an abstract directionless timespace. We, since the Our Beginning, aka Big Bang exist in mattertime, alternatively named spacetime and confined to the moving universe in #3.
Energytime stretches into the infinite past, and future in timespace #1, or as BBC called it " block time".
Abstract does not mean absent.
Time is an abstract concept, like heights, width and depth are abstract concepts. These axes do not exist in nature, but we recognize and work with them. The 3D abstract concepts of ours correspond to realities in nature, similarly, our clocks measure our movement through time, a reality, of the 1st dimension we have to deal with.
abstract but inescapable. therefore
# 1 in the model sketch on page #38 , post #748.
Earliest galaxies found 'on our cosmic doorstep'
By Paul RinconScience editor, BBC News website
so: have these particular galaxies, - if the hypothesis is correct - , moved through time, but less through, or with, - space than the rest, that are now ~ 12 billion light years away, of course we are 13.8 billion years old, and not far away from our nearest neighbour. or?
Galaxies might persist, but their stars do not, so, what would go on now so close to us? all of course in the abstract membrane #3, that represents all matter/energy having come through equal time since the Big Beginning.
By Paul RinconScience editor, BBC News website
so: have these particular galaxies, - if the hypothesis is correct - , moved through time, but less through, or with, - space than the rest, that are now ~ 12 billion light years away, of course we are 13.8 billion years old, and not far away from our nearest neighbour. or?
Galaxies might persist, but their stars do not, so, what would go on now so close to us? all of course in the abstract membrane #3, that represents all matter/energy having come through equal time since the Big Beginning.
Last edited:
Time is an abstract concept .
Height , width and depth are not abstract concepts . And should not be based on any axes .
All three are found in space with no mathematics involved .
All are fundamental to the existence , the manifestation , of sub-atomic and the macro physical , Quasars , galaxies , stars etc
Last edited:
and none of them could exist without having time to exist in.
Time, - and energy to convert from. Energytime. infinite, fundamental.
Time should be time honoured. now,
about that BBC article, super old galaxies. like in the OP, old in time, but near in space? spacetime or timespace?
What physical form does time take to have something to exist in it ?
timespace
just like matter needs "spacetime" to be hung into,
time has timespace , or as BBC named it "Blocktime" or a block, all filling , to exist in. Only if you have time # 1 can you have anything, even no-thing. aka energy.
Time has no physical form similarly to space.
Space is necessary for things to exist .
But nobody explains how time does anything thing at all , time is an assumption unproven in and of its self .
Last edited:
Whoever said time has to do anything? space does not do anything either, but " --brother, you can't have one without the other" to quote from the old musical. so:
If it were not for time, we would not have this discussion, infinite, fundamental time. Item #1 of the sketch page 35 post #681.
<www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180816183200.htm>
"The research group's findings suggest that galaxies including Segue-1, Bootes I, Tucana II and Ursa Major I are in fact some of the first galaxies ever formed, thought to be over 13 billion years old."
Does this not suggests that their light is not redshifted through the billion year old expansion of space, and the Hubble "law"does not apply to age, but only distance? and how about the generations of stars that preceded our present star population here?
Not contradicting the expanding through time model though. All near or far matter shares the same age , distance in time from the Big Beginning.
Here is a quote from the BBC article above:
Dr Bose explained: "One could think that, maybe some of these pre-reionisation galaxies are more compact than their counterparts that formed afterwards. They were formed at a time when the Universe was much denser, because the Universe was smaller.:"
This is in line with the smaller, younger sphere #8 of the model, and the older, but nearer galaxies spoken of would be somewhere within the radius/horizon #9. not closer to #5,because it's older, more distant in time. or?
"The research group's findings suggest that galaxies including Segue-1, Bootes I, Tucana II and Ursa Major I are in fact some of the first galaxies ever formed, thought to be over 13 billion years old."
Does this not suggests that their light is not redshifted through the billion year old expansion of space, and the Hubble "law"does not apply to age, but only distance? and how about the generations of stars that preceded our present star population here?
Not contradicting the expanding through time model though. All near or far matter shares the same age , distance in time from the Big Beginning.
Here is a quote from the BBC article above:
Dr Bose explained: "One could think that, maybe some of these pre-reionisation galaxies are more compact than their counterparts that formed afterwards. They were formed at a time when the Universe was much denser, because the Universe was smaller.:"
This is in line with the smaller, younger sphere #8 of the model, and the older, but nearer galaxies spoken of would be somewhere within the radius/horizon #9. not closer to #5,because it's older, more distant in time. or?
Last edited: