Membrane #3 Being again , what exactly ?
ALMA sees old galaxies before they merged. two ways to look back into the past?
- Thread starter nebel
- Start date
Membrane #3 Being again , what exactly ?
well, light can not be seen from the side, only coming at you head on, many objects, reflect light from other sources, and of course modify it, ( the original photons incoming are not the same leaving). but If you shade the object , you can then see or measure the light originating from the body itself (one of the coldest places around is very close to the sun, the night side of
Mercury)
here is post # 681 expanding membrane #3 3 highlighted < in the golf ball picture of post 1007, the universe would be the white surface, the 4 # umbrellas# the different fields of view. at least 4 observers required to see the whole universe.
In post # 681 below
# 1 is timespace of the future that the universe expands into into. aka energytime.
#2 is the past timespace that the membrane sphere #3 has moved through from the BB # 4, an area, volume, that is now void of gravity, other fields and any information.
#3 is the zero thickness membrane that is thought of to contain all matter of the universe. ( zero thickness because it's zero dwell on its movement into the future).
#4 is the point in timespace of the BB big beginning, now empty.
#5 is showing the observer's location (Hubble telescope in this case of deep space viewing)
#6 is the location of the MAC1 oldest, far star seen so far, so far away in time (2/3 to the horizon #9, which is allowing us to see only back to the BB cbmr).
#7 is the exit point in the past, timespace, where the image of the far star that Hubble captured, originated, on the then smaller universe #8.
#8 is the size in time of the universe when the light that Hubble received from MAC1 was emitted.
#9 is our horizon from our current position in the universe, with a radius of ~13 BLYs along the membrane surface. (the rim of the umbrella)
#10 is the possible position of the farthest star, ~ 40 BLYs away, halfway around the universe / membrane sphere. > 2 horizons away.
#11 is a correction point accounting for the curvature of the membranes surface vs circumference. (also for 3/3.14 hex vs circle)
#12 is the position of an astronomer elsewhere in the universe, that also could see that far star, but from the other side. lucky lady!
#0 is the shortest path that the photons took from the small beginning in early universe #8 at point #7 to the observation point at our hubble detector at # 5. ( track could have been longer because of proper motion). Far star's images' light came from point #7, but was seen as coming from #6, along the membrane #3, the direction #6 in the current position of the far star.
refutations, falsification attempts invited. tempting you.
Go on . Why is one of coldest places around ? To your last statement .
sorry to not have been more specific, but you have to go to about saturn, @ 10 AU, with 1% the solar energy strength to get low temperatures just at . 4 AU from the sun. why?
long mercurial nights, good shielding, deep heat sink at 3 degrees kelvin.
The model requires the zero length dwell time. the moment in time is of zero length. Te idea is not new, flatlanders in a curved surface.
and you agree ! in the membrane# 3, the photons arrive in a horizontal plane, 180 degrees, a panorama. no up and down.
The model requires that you sacrifice one spatial dimension to show the whole, the all time-inclusive picture.
whether you prefer the sausage model, or the expanding balloon, trading time for girth is worth it.
Highlighted
How long ? What is this " shielding " made ?
Heat sink , takes heat away . But why at three degrees kelvin ?
Mercury is not made of Mercury, but material that has those thermal properties, has a 60 earth days long night to cool (google it). you can turn water to ice in an equatorial desert on earth in less than 12 hours. The night sky is not absolute zero, because it contains among other things all radiation ever emitted at/since the Big Beginning. even yours. you contribute to 3 Kelvin!
No, the fault is not in the thinking. All illustration in this thread , Nasa, NSF, Nebel, are 2 or 3 dimensional representations, models. The most fruitful models are now made in one dimension: the binary code of computers, on/off.
I can picture all the mass in the universe represented in a zero thickness skin.#3. and imagine the tremendous gravity pulling in anything outside, in the future #1 of the expanding universe,#3. -
- with all that pull, no wonder it expands. it is sucked into the future. and
no gravity in the past.#2. done.
here is confirmation that nebel's expanding sphere model with dimpling is more likely to be true than the sliced sausage model.
W4y, here is the latest from New Scientist Magazine,
"the extra lensing implies the presence of extra dark matter, which would pull the universe into a finite sphere instead of a flat sheet.
According to these observations, the universe is 41 times more likely to be closed than flat. “This is the most precise cosmological data and it is giving us a different picture,”
The universe is not like a slice of a sausage, flat but can be modeled as an expanding sphere :
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-the-universe-is-round-or-flat/#ixzz77A8fsZ60
W4y, here is the latest from New Scientist Magazine,
"the extra lensing implies the presence of extra dark matter, which would pull the universe into a finite sphere instead of a flat sheet.
According to these observations, the universe is 41 times more likely to be closed than flat. “This is the most precise cosmological data and it is giving us a different picture,”
The universe is not like a slice of a sausage, flat but can be modeled as an expanding sphere :
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-the-universe-is-round-or-flat/#ixzz77A8fsZ60
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Are you proposing that the universe has a center of gravity?
That is a very unexpected and appropriate question. Could it have two? one in time and many now? ? Looking at the spheres above, it appears, in the model, the universe #3 expands from the point in time # 4 into the future # 1. Given an even average travel through time, the presently non - existing point #4 in the past #2 is the centre of mass, and therefore the center of gravity.
should the universe have an even collapse. it would be there that one would expect to have all the mass meet again, and revert back into energy .
A different question is : What does it mean, that the center of gravity is in the past, ?. If You go back into the past far enough, you will end up in the center of gravity .
In the model, all forces act inside the membrane of sphere #3, the location of all mass, Given an equal distribution throughout the universe, every point in the membrane would, on balance, in measurement, be the center of mass, of equal tangential gravity force in any direction, , however
what is true of the interior # 2, is different for the exterior, the future #1. Gravity should exercise a pull from the "outside", between the future and the present.
If one could look at the universe from the empty future #1, , the center of gravity would be at # 4
The sausage type model of the 'universe in time' of your post #3 does not offer such a balanced, true of all points picture.
In timespace, the center of gravity is the Big Bang point in time. In spacetime it is everywhere.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Would a toroid model satisfy the apparent phenomena?
This is a representation of the hypothesised toroidal Universe, or "donut theory" of the Universe. Such a Universe cannot really be visualised this way, as donuts have two dimensional surfaces, and the proposed toroidal Universe would be curved not just through space, but through spacetime. However, it is simpler, and also rather fun, to visualise our Universe as a sort of cosmic donut. This graphic will form part of the "The Living Universe" exhibition, to be displayed at the ESO Supernova.
https://supernova.eso.org/exhibition/images/spheroidal-universe/
with due respect. how can you call it simpler than the empty blue shere from New Scientist mag. or the diagram above, post # 1024.
there, looking tangentially into membrane #3, from all direction you would see a panorama emerging, of substantially evenly spaced objects. C compare that with
A view to the zenith from the inner surface of the toroid: a total void halfway to the horizon, and the the rest filled with matter, but looking the other way out, into the tightly packed near constellations, no near void at all.
Occam's razor too would have all bodies move away from the beginning # 4 , through time #1 evenly in all directions. but
hey, the universe has surprised us before. grandiose beyond the imagination.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I didn't call that simpler, however, a toroidal shape solves a lot of pending questions,
a) the existence of a creative singularity
b) the apparent expansion and subsequent contraction of the universe
c) a continual destruction and renewal of the universe
d) a 2d surface spacetime
[e] I like donuts .......
It appears your toroid image is a miniature image of the actual universe, and I pointed out that our observations do not match at all what it would look like from many positions in reality. Of course the universe does not look like this diagram either, but it is only a geometric/math model of matter moving through time from a starting point. It does not answer many questions, but opens a window on the possibility, that there is a limitless timespace #1, through which the universe represented by the spherical membrane #3 expands into the future.
Post #1037's a,b,c,d assertions could all be represented, and pinpointed in this drawing too. As to #e, donuts, too much of the ingredients would serious limit your dwelling on #3, travel through #1.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Doesn't this look like the theory of a space expanding outward from a white energetic singularity and once passing the equator, contracting back toward a super massive black hole singularity?
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-torus-model-of-the-universe-a-larger-version-of-a-spiral-galaxy
Round and round it goes in an endless renewal and death of the universe.
This may be just an imaginary model, but for some intuitive reason I like its simplicity and mathematically functional structure.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-torus-model-of-the-universe-a-larger-version-of-a-spiral-galaxy
Round and round it goes in an endless renewal and death of the universe.
This may be just an imaginary model, but for some intuitive reason I like its simplicity and mathematically functional structure.
That is an impressive model, adds even a rotation, In essence it is an expanding sphere once you are into the convex part.
the diagram feature agree with this, as one of the possibilities, The expanding through time model deals only with the movement outward movement in time, timespace.
If, in Roger Penrose fashion there is a return into the beginning, the arrows would be reversed, without recreating the past.
Even the journey back into the past would be a forward movement, into empty territory through timespace.
the diagram feature agree with this, as one of the possibilities, The expanding through time model deals only with the movement outward movement in time, timespace.
If, in Roger Penrose fashion there is a return into the beginning, the arrows would be reversed, without recreating the past.
Even the journey back into the past would be a forward movement, into empty territory through timespace.