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

    New scientist article headline:"--String theory, triangulation, relativity - who cares if physicists trying to explain time have reached an impasse? A new show presses pause on hunting for answers--"
    By Michael Brooks
    HIS latest book, The Order of Time, theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli describes time as a “multilayered, complex concept with multiple, distinct properties deriving from various different approximations”. But in the end, Rovelli admits that when it comes to explaining time, physicists struggle to convince even themselves. “I’m not sure if we are dealing with a plausible story, but I do not know of any better ones,” he says of his attempts.--"
    well, recommended reads, on this thread time is teated as an infinite 4st dimension through which matter moves for now.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. nebel

    Putting up this article from Science Daily. It deals with with the expansion of the universe, it's space, Simons Foundation. "Gravitational waves will settle cosmic conundrum." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 February 2019. But:
    This thread, The present hypothesis models the expansion of the universe through time only from the point source of the BB into the unlimited future. We know the elapsed time, but not the extend of the spatial expansion during that duration. do we need to?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    When neutron stars collide, they emit light and gravitational waves, as seen in this artist's illustration. By comparing the timing of the two emissions from many different neutron star mergers, researchers can measure how fast the universe is expanding.
    Credit: R. Hurt/Caltech-JPL

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    When neutron stars collide, they emit light and gravitational waves, as seen in this artist's illustration. By comparing the timing of the two emissions from many different neutron star mergers, researchers can measure how fast the universe is expanding.
    Credit: R. Hurt/Caltech-JPL
    sorry, cant cancel double exposure, help.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2019
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. nebel

    Last edited: Mar 3, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. nebel

    Scientists claim to have 'reversed time' with quantum computer

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Electronics for use in a quantum computer in the quantum computing lab at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, N.Y. (Seth Wenig / AP)
    from ctv Canada news. well a little piece might have moved back into past time. or was it? The apparatus is still with us though moving forward into the future in the matter of the universe, which in the here proposed model resembles an expanding sphere moving on into the energy-bearing timespace.
    May be they just re-arranged the particles to a previous configuration, that still, if you watched the clock, had moved into the future just like the rest of us. or?
  8. nebel

    Instead, In the here proposed "expanding through time" model, Time is treated as the 1st dimension, uncreated, like Energy, since Energy needs time to exist in. Time of course existing between events, an indicator of duration, as you say, but by necessity existing before events as we know them inside the expanding universe started occurring.
    Here is a comment by Freeman Dyson about a conversation he had with Richard Feynman, Cecile Morette at Cornell:

    "----Feynman amused and astounded Morette with a crystal-clear explanation of his theories and amazed Dyson by solving two seemingly intractable problems. As Dyson recalled, " That afternoon Feynman produced more brilliant ideas per square minute than I ever seen anywhere before or since. " (bold added)*** so,

    Freeman Dyson referred here, even if only in jest, to a kind of timesurface, by saying "square minute". At BBC was written of Blocktime. Nebel wrote of Energytime,
    timespace, seen perhaps as an infinite time cube, comprising many Dyson square minutes.
    ***quoted from the 2018 edition of Prof. Paul Halpern's book: "The Quantum Labyrinth" page 115, par 1.
    better minds than Nebel think deep down of time as fundamental, through which we move, shown by this Freudian slip of F. Dyson.
    PS: google other quotes by Freeman Dyson. recommended.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019
  9. nebel


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    From BBC: " The way time flows suggests, that the present does not exist"
    right. The present does not exist because it is of Zero Length, duration, in the radius #4-5 (post #800, page # 40) , in the direction which matter in the universe moves through time #1 in the expanding sphere model.
    I does not mean time does not exist, for it must be infinitely old, but that the present is fleeting. use it well.
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2019
  10. nebel

    Carlo Rovelli in The Guardian

    Sun 31 Mar 2019 09.00 BSTLast modified on Mon 1 Apr 2019 11.39 BST
    "We inhabit time as fish live in water,”
    in other words, when it comes down to it, we move through time, big time.
  11. nebel

    In Nebel's Alternate Hypothesis of the universe expanding through timespace as a model expanding membrane sphere, It is assumed that there is kind of an inertia to the unbroken, unrelenting movement through time. The byline: "Scientists believe that time is continuous, not discrete" in this Science Daily article: <>.
    The piece has other insights though. Chopping time itself into small chunks would be easy, but one could not move the universe in small "stop and go" steps. interesting, relevant read.
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  12. nebel

    post 728. bold added.

    This interesting term you used came up in connection with conditions inside the Solar System , not the pre Big Bang situation, that is the staple of this "moving through time model."
    If you look at the orbits of the planets as being seen in timespace, (Zeitraum) that is: primarily in time, as we here in this thread, see the universe #3 moving through time#1, Then
    the Semi Major Axis of the planets with eccentric (elliptical ) orbits appears shifted away from the Sun. why?
    Planets spend longer, more time at aphelion, away from the Sun, the gravity being weaker there. As a consequence. The Orbit of Mercury has a Semi Major Time axis or middle timespace point of .3992 AU rather than .387 AU. very close to the, 4, the starting point of the Bode chain.
    When looking from the standpoint of the first, the time dimension, the planetary spacings appear to be more accurately related in their regularity outward, doubling and with a lover limit of 300 light seconds, ( Mercury-Venus-Earth) and an upper of 160 light minutes. ( Uranus-Neptune-Pluto).
    "Time' exposed as the primacy it deserves., existing in timespace. but
    Make no mistake about it, even if all these movements came to a halt, the objects would still exist in time, time #1 is not dependant on movement.
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I think I posted this in context of the "inflationary period" which was near instantaneous, due to the lack of any restrictive properties of the pre-BB permittive condition. No space, no time, just unrestricted permission to become expressed as a chaotic condition and the beginning of universal spacetime commensurate with the ordering of patterns within the chaos, and the inception of individual timelines for all subsequent chronologies.
  14. nebel

    Yes you did, thank you, and that is why I included the details of your post. page #37.

    Fact is, one does not have to move at all, through time ore space for time to exist. Proof?
    Here is the question,: asked some body or entity (even named energy), -- truly at rest *.
    " How long have you been sitting here?
    ---in case of energy, the answer would be : infinitely long,-- have always been here. Time is always, omnipresent. (present from here, now) in Pre- Big Bang, energytime. in timespace. but,

    * How about that stable, un-moving place to sit on, such a long time. --relatively?
    Take the proposition from the " Jupiter orbital, rotational velocities cancel " thread in pseudoscience. There is established that epicycles, cycloids have areas of zero velocity. so,
    As a thought experiment assume that all the motions of all the galactic, super cluster work out like that, come at one point to a standstill, like a tire hitting the road, in this case timespace . At total standstill, you would be motionless, at maximum movement through space.
    you would be at the forefront of the expanding sphere #3, because standstill is
    the opposite of observance at the speed of light, or maximum gravity, where you experience no aging, are stuck, not moving in time. so,

    1) Energy is uncreated, infinitely old. farther than ALMA can see.

    2) Energy needed time to exist in.
    (even if it was just sitting there, doing timespace.)

    3) Time is infinitely old.

    refutations welcome.
    Last edited: May 11, 2019
  15. nebel

    We were talking about the matter in the universe. so. looking at it relatively:

    1) Time is not created by matter or it's movement. When matter is confined by extreme gravity, as in a black hole. it is stuck in time too, ceases to move through time. zero movement through time. that does not mean that time has disappeared though. for, it is clearly just doing fine for the rest of us.

    2) When reaching the speed of light. "c", movement through time as a dimension, appears to also come to a standstill. But a photon particle or wave comprises no matter, or mass. as such it's zero time travel is different in origin than the confining space warp of a black hole.
    Mass-less energy, such as a light wave (it is truly light) could be considered to operate in energytime, the No #1 dimension. At that speed, apparently, the dimension in the direction of movement shrinks to zero too, so: Light rotating in a plane, defining 2 dimensions , is not strictly confined to the 3 D space of the membrane #3, that in the model contains all the matter of the expanding universe. so:

    The present model, of a universe expanding through time, distinguishes between the 2 processes by which motion through time is coming to zero. so:
    To exist in time, you don't have to move at all, you could just sit there. in a deep gravity well, or be riding a light wave, like A. Einstein imagined. surf is up!
    Last edited: May 14, 2019
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No you cannot, not even theoretically.
    In a deep gravity well you'd be infinitely small, and riding a lightwave you'd be infinitely large. Neither state of matter would be a form of existence and therefore not subject to time (change, duration, age) at all.
  17. nebel

    I did not mean the illustrations personally, but referred to the thought experiment of A.E. where he imagined to ride a light, photon wave. surfing on standing river waves was not in vogue at his time in Switzerland yet.
    The existence in/of time is not primarily a question of size. **
    The proposition of the model of an expanding sphere moving out into time, assumes that
    energy is uncreated, and had time to exist in. Time, the 1st dimension #1. To exist, any non thing even, has to be in that 1st dimension, moving or not. Most matter, in this universe moves through time.
    before there was matter, there was energy, existing in time. there is still plenty of both ahead in the future. #1.
    PS: ** what I meant is that Albert, imagining himself moving at "c" and looking back at the clock tower, seeing the hands stuck, meaning he himself was stopped in time, was worried how big he himself was. thank you.
    Last edited: May 14, 2019
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    IMO, rather than a pre-existing space, I would suggest no space, but a permittive condition which allows for expansion of the universe.
  19. nebel

    good affirmation about time (it is about time). because
    Any condition, even a hint of it, can exist without having time to exist in. therefore,
    According to you own proposal, time has to be a pre condition, permitting it, before the start of our universe. Time, the first dimension No. #1.
    thank you.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Not really. With the term"condition" I mean the absence of space. A nothingness with no properties at all, including time.

    But because it is a timeless nothingness, it allows for something to emerge and expand (the BB from a singularity), and time begins.
  21. nebel

    If you have read "A universe out of nothing" for example, or read Dirac, Penrose, you must be aware that there is no such thing as "nothing". Even the embodiment of the concept of nothing would require time to exist, to allow it.
    The key is, that matter which we are, the space we live in, is the result of conversion from energy, that is uncreated, that existed in time also uncreated, therefore infinity old into the past and young into the future.
    Unless you propose that energy is created. Then , let us move this thread and others into the religious section. but even then, that concept requires eternal time too.
    Time is #1, by necessity the first dimension.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Not really. You speak of energy as a static measurable condition. But energy is a result of dynamic change. But uncreated energy is a potential of a dynamical condition. Therefore dynamic change is the first dimensional activity.

    Infinity has no time. It assumes there is no beginning or change. If there is no beginning, when does time come into existence? Infinity is timeless and time emerges only with the first change. We know about the BB being the beginning of the universe.

    Well, I think it is safe to assume that God is not the creator of something out of nothing. God itself implies a pre-existing something. It is a contradiction in terms.

    IMO, The abstract mathematics of Pi has something to do with the singularity and maybe causal to dynamic change. The concept of Pi itself sounds dynamical in essence.
    Is there any reason why the abstraction of the number 1 should not appear somewhere in Pi ? Why should it not?

    My guess is that would be the abstract "emergence" of a rational number and signify a "singularity".
  23. nebel

    Thank you for defining that. We have potential energy in the universe now. In the time before the universe there must have been a kind of potential energy not tied to matter or it's position or movement. A kind of UR energy. It was energy that had not converted to matter yet.
    That potential could not have existed without time.
    It is through this time #1 we are moving

    bold added.

    Time as a dimension is beyond our ability to understand, evolved as we have, even mentally, to look for that all important cause. The concept of something uncreated, indestructible, as energy has proven to be, is just totally "beyond" our horizon. It is an awesome thought, not being able to grasp it. yet:
    There it is: Time should be seen as without a beginning , stretching into the unending future, containing not just your "energy potential" , but it's alter ego, matter, us.
    The word leaves a wrong impression in many minds. suffice it to say that we are doing just fine leaving that up to a personal choice.
    Here we are, moving through time #1 having energy, for all we know uncreated, infinite. better than created.
    Last edited: May 15, 2019

Share This Page