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

    Not entirely true. Let's say you observe two opposite area's in the sky. You focus on a certain redshift (i.e. time in the past). The further back into the past you go, the farther away these points in the sky currently are, but also the farther apart these points were at the time the light you are observing was emitted. I think this may be so right up to the inflationary era.

    In other words, the farther away we look, the larger the universe we observe.

    And this interpretation breaks down in a big crunch universe, as I already said. Or in a static universe.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. nebel

    When we are looking, it is not like sending out a beam to illuminate and then read the reflection. It is merely registering the photons that left in the past. That was then a denser, smaller world. The perception the picture comes from a larger volume, all around us, is an illusion, because of the spiral path traced on an inflating sphere's skin. Paths that are not parallel, but were converged ( close together) at the point in time nearer to the BB.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. nebel

    why would it? in a deflating sphere model, the radii would get smaller and shorter, the future, rather than being huge, and outside like it is right now, would be inside, and very limited. With the shrinking skin, the time remaining shrinks. Back to a mere point in time, zero space too, dust returned to energy perhaps. Leaving time, like a clean slate, to be inhabited by future denizen perhaps. or a new start
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. nebel

    Evidently, a static universe model would not be expanding through time, but be a sphere remaining of the same size, existing in infinite time. Any proper motion inside that compound curved "skin" would be a motion through time, though, expressed by a value in the direction of a radius. Consider an object having moved across half that universe, would it not have moved through time (2 radii) to do it? Proper motion involves moving through time too. If the analogy fits, you have to be convinced. (rephrasing the Simpson trial)
    ps : a hollow sphere has a geometric center, a center of mass too, even if it is not bodily inside the material of the structure.
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2017
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    I never claimed otherwise.

    Please prove this using the FRW metric. Seriously, you claim that the higher the redshift, the further into the past, but the closer it was to us back then. That makes no sense on a short scale, so I'd like to see some calculation proving this effect.

    There is no "spiral path traced on an inflating sphere's skin".

    Yes, but please demonstrate that (still) happens to times after the era of inflation.

    So in a big crunch universe, the future and past magically switch places as the expansion changes to contraction? How does this work? Do particles all of a sudden start flying backwards?

    (No comment.)

    But there is no change in the value of the radius. In other words, you claim that is a universe is not expanding or contracting, everything in it must be fully static. That's clearly non-sense.

    Indeed it will. However, in your model, this isn't possible, because there's only a single moment in time (that on the skin). Better example: put a watch anywhere, and don't move it around. According to your model, there would be no passage of time. Yet the watch ticks. That is a contradiction, and it invalidates your model.

    Exactly, something your model can't explain.

    But the analogue doesn't fit, and therefore it has to be rejected.

  9. nebel

    Even in a static (non expanding )universe model, , there has to be considerable energetic proper motion, inside that vaulted skin to counterbalance the gravitational forces pulling to a possible collapse. As I pointed out, any movement along that curve segment has a component measurable in the radius direction i.e. time. Any object, even that clock has to be sustained against gravity by proper motion, and as such it will move through time time measured at right angles to that movement. not to speak of the transitional movement that goes through time too.

    It is not magic. Movement through time can happen in any "direction" . If time is fundamental and infinite, there is no past infinity, present infinity or future infinity. The static universe model would be the border case between the expansion and the crunch phase. Movement through time is always into the future, because time itself does not have an orientation or direction. If there is an obstacle in the direction you are moving , like in a crunch, your time remaining, distance in travel through time, is limited. That could be linear, but in the sphere model, the direction, "points of the arrow" cover the whole 360 degrees. The expansion was pointing in the same directions, but out.

    There are no clocks that run, but have stopped moving through time.
  10. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    If the universe is not expanding or contracting, the radius stays the same. There will not be any change in the radial component. So in your model, there will be no passage of time.

    Wrong. Take an empty universe that isn't contracting or expanding. Time still passes (a watch still ticks), yet there is no gravity present. So there is no need for any proper motion.

    Again, according to your model, this is impossible, as there cannot be any movement through time (the skin doesn't move).

    What is "transitional movement"?

    Not in your model: the direction of time is the same as the expansion/contraction direction of the skin.

    An "infinite present" is nonsensical. But without both an infinite past and an infinite future, how can time be infinite?

    Not "phase"; a static universe isn't something that can only exist for an instant as the universe switches between expanding and contracting: it's perfectly possible for a universe to be static throughout time.

    Wrong: time there is only pointing in one direction: the radial direction.

    "Out" how? Universal expansion isn't an expansion into new space, it's an expansion of space itself.

    You've dodged the question: if the universe switches from expansion to contraction, in your model, the locations of the past and the future switch. Initially, the skin passes r = 0.5 (arbitrary units) when expanding, and this corresponds to t = 100 (again, arbitrary units). Later, the universal expansion reverses, and the skin passes by r = 0.5 again, but now at t = 200. In your model, since the radius gives the time, this means that t = 100 must be the same as t = 200; in other words, the universe at t = 100 must look identical to the universe at t = 200. Time reverses as the expansion switches to contraction. This is weird, and not what the theory of general relativity predicts. How do you resolve this conflict?
  11. nebel

    Did I ? my understanding is, that there is just time. It by itself has no inherent future or past qualities. Of course the past lies always behind your movement through time. and in a contracting universe it would be bigger, outside. that confirms the validity of the model!

    As to the static universe, never really thought about that model, let it suffice to say that any sideway movement inside the compound curved 2 dimensional space "skin" is also a movement through the space dimension in which it is embedded. Looking back into time would require to know how it got to be static and that size. , was it that shape and way from the origin? if not, the expanding/shrinking analogy applies.
  12. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Except that it doesn't in your model. As the expansion switches to contracting, the past becomes the future, which is nonsensical. That's my point!

    But when the universe was expanding, it was inside. It magically switched: that's my point.

    It in fact does the very opposite: it invalidates your model.

    But how can you have movement without the passage of time? The very notion is incoherent.

    It always was that size; that's what "static" means.

    Except that it clearly can't. In the static universe time still passes, but your model excludes that possibility. In other words, a static universe in general cannot be described by your model, and it proves that interpreting the radius of the balloon model as a measure of time is wrong. I've now explained this to you multiple time, but you seem incapable of unwilling to understanding why your model doesn't work. Your model violates the theory of general relativity. Your model cannot model many of the types of universes it predicts.

    Perhaps you should request this thread to be moved to the pseudoscience or alternative theories section?
  13. nebel

    The OP includes that prequest. agreed, I admire the patience of the moderators, but like my other " in good faith" topics, there might be more merit to my queries than you realize.
    The time as a dimension idea is not mine. That we are moving through time and also live in an universe that has moved through time since inception, skews our view. can there be objects that extend through time without having expanded?

    Au contraire, The analogy of an object moving completely around the surface and describing a radius, and a segment of the interior, which is time after all, proves that the model holds. There is different results for different types of universes of course. There is different ways of moving through time, as there is through space.
    ps: in an expanding universe model, the moving object would describe a spiral, in the static universe, a circle. both glad to have the time to move through.
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2017
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    You continually fail to demonstrate that merit, so can you blame me for not realizing it?

    If you formulate it as such: indeed, it's not yours. It's been accepted mainstream science for more than 300 years!
    However, the idea that time is a radius is wrong, as I've demonstrated multiple times now, so it's irrelevant whether the idea is yours or not.

    Obviously, yes. What do you think the introduction of the cosmological constant was all about? A static universe has no expansion, yet time passes normally. It appears that indeed one of us has a clouded judgement due to living in a universe that has moved through time since inception.

    You keep claiming this, but are unable to prove it, and are unable to counter my objections: the static universe case proves that your model does not hold.

    At the abstraction level we are talking about, there is only one way to move through space: have your spatial coordinates change. Similarly, there is only one way of moving through time.

    And there's the rub: how can an object be moving (in a circle) when there is no passage of time? Movement without the passage of time is an incoherent notion.

    Except that one obviously doesn't have time to move through, because the radius (and thus time) doesn't change.

    Are you really unable to comprehend this? If you say the passage of time is directly related to the changing of the radius, it logically follows that if the radius doesn't change, no time passes. Without the passage of time, there cannot be any movement. Your model demands that a static universe contains no movement, which is in direct conflict with the theory of general relativity. And you claim that movement is possible without the passage of time, which (as I've said before, and you have been unable to counter) is an incoherent notion.

    It's clear to me now: this thread most definitely belongs not in the science sections.
  15. nebel

    except that moving through time is not at all limited to a radial direction. That was a feature dictated by the expanding sphere model's space expansion. Any displacement of an object anywhere in any direction involves duration, therefore movement through time. That great circle traversed is a great example, 1 degree at a time. through time.
    Looking from any angle, from directly above it, and assuming that the "skin is transparent, the great circle object could be seen to move through the path of a diameter. twice. Of course the steady state sphere, non expanding, does not move through time, but any object in proper motion on it does.
    Time as a dimension is non-directional.
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017
  16. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    So you agree with me that what you said in post #93 ("Fitting analogy: Time in the expanding sphere model would be the mile. a unit in the radial direction.") was wrong? Good.


    And this is relevant to the discussion at hand how?

    Yes, as I've been saying multiple times now.

    Space as a dimension is also non-directional. So? How is that relevant to the discussion at hand?
  17. nebel

    except that moving through time is not at all limited to a radial direction. That was a feature dictated by the expanding sphere model's space expansion.
    So you agree with me that what you said in post #93 ("Fitting analogy: Time in the expanding sphere model would be the mile. a unit in the radial direction.") was wrong? Good.

    not wrong at all. Movement through time in the expanding model is seen in a direction normal ( 90 deg. or radial) to the space movement. In as much as the proper movement within space of an object involves time, that holds true in both models, and since on a sphere can be a moving in any direction, so would be the time orientation. Only the expanding universe is relevant for us though why, speculate about the possible trillions of bubbles in the multiverse with their diverse laws?
    glad you are agreeing on so many points now!
    When I was young we lived in the same town as Einstein, now even the anti-Einstein shares a space with me!
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Ah, your model is only valid when the universe is expanding? Then the question arises: what changes when the expansion stops? In the theory of general relativity, this is simply handled by the same equations. How must the model be modified in order to describe such a situation too? Or is your model unable to handle it at all? In which case, I suggest rejecting your model, because the theory of general relativity seems to have a much broader domain of applicability.

    What second model?

    I cannot parse that last bit. Can you please rephrase that?

    Who says the universe will not (perhaps through some currently unknown mechanism) start contracting? How can you be so certain that our universe must be an only-expanding one?

    I'm not speculating about any multiverse; I'm trying to see how much more limited than the theory of general relativity your model is.

    Yes, now that you finally admitted your model is of very very limited use, we can agree that the theory of general relativity is superior to your model.

    Erm, did you just call me anti-Einstein? If anybody in this thread is anti-Einstein, it's you by denying and contradicting the theory of general relativity.
  19. nebel

    sorry, I was referring to the negative image your N.E. logo projects. no downgrading of your qualities at all.
    Thank you, obviously it tried to incorporate at least the effect of time dilation, with increase gravity, see black holes stuck in time. These great theories are not stuck in time for 100 years either. even if Black Holes are.
  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Ah, OK, no hard feelings.

    How do you explain the time dilation caused by high velocities in your model?

    No, indeed, science marches forward. But that's one of the things that concerns me: your model seems to explain less than the theory of general relativity. It seems like a step backwards to me?
  21. nebel

    I have no easy answer to that yet. at "c" the space dimension in the direction of the travel shrinks to zero, with one space dimension already deducted in the model, the photon would operate without the restraints of space.
    The motions through time in the steady state ', infinite time model are based in part on the relativity effects. gravity would tighten the skin, causing it to move into the time realm. Any motion of an object through that arc in the skin, would trace motion through the time realm, measured always at right angles to the space direction.
    The time outside space model, expanding or not, points out differences between time dilation caused by gravity, and the one caused by the opposite, energy.
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2017
  22. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    What do you mean by "the restraints of space"?

    Why would you think that?

    What does "move into the time realm" mean?

    The theory of special relativity shows quite clearly that time and space are connected; there cannot be a "time outside space".
  23. nebel

    that of course is so, where we live, but that they are connected now, does not mean space always existed. space has become connected to time only since the origin. nothing could exist without being connected, entangled with time.

    "realm of time" ? the volume in the model that represents infinite time, time before, after, outside of space.
    the uniqueness of the energy/ photon problem can signal there is properties to time, that our current theories not account for.

Share This Page