ALMA sees old galaxies before they merged. two ways to look back into the past?

[Write4U]

On the theme of the OP seeing the same event twice, again from the others side of the universe, here a partial event: Image coming a convoluted way along membrane #3 through deep time warps.

University of Copenhagen - Faculty of Science. "Astronomers spot the same supernova three times -- and predict a fourth sighting in 16 years." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 13 September 2021. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/09/210913135608.htm>.

Now play this and watch what happens @ 12:30

I have no clue what all this means but there is something in common here. The model are identical.

Does anyone want to tackle this?

 

[nebel]

Does anyone want to tackle this?

no, not yet, but first we like to see you tackle the merit of 12 sided universe versus the Sphere Expanding Into Time model.

 

[Write4U]

no, not yet, but first we like to see you tackle the merit of 12 sided universe versus the Sphere Expanding Into Time model.

Can we set aside the dodecahedron model for now? That was an idealized theoretical model.

Let me first ask a few questions about the merit of a "Sphere Expanding Into Time" model.

a) what was causal to the expanding oblate spherical shape?

Putting the ‘bang’ in Big Bang
New theory of secondary inflation expands options for avoiding an excess of dark matter, by Brookhaven National Laboratory

by Brookhaven National Laboratory

Late last week (October 24, 2019), physicists at MIT announced that they’ve worked with others around the globe to simulate a critical “reheating” period that kickstarted the Big Bang in the universe’s first fractions of a second. This new work helps explain what has been a mystery in cosmology: how cold, uniform matter in the brief period of inflation – a period lasting less than a trillionth of a second in the early universe – transformed to become the ultrahot, complex soup that led to the universe as we know it.

In an fascinating piece for the MIT News Office, Jennifer Chu explained:
"As the Big Bang theory goes, somewhere around 13.8 billion years ago the universe exploded into being, as an infinitely small, compact fireball of matter that cooled as it expanded, triggering reactions that cooked up the first stars and galaxies, and all the forms of matter that we see (and are) today."

Just before the Big Bang launched the universe onto its ever-expanding course, physicists believe, there was another, more explosive phase of the early universe at play: cosmic inflation, which lasted less than a trillionth of a second. During this period, matter — a cold, homogeneous goop — inflated exponentially quickly before processes of the Big Bang took over to more slowly expand and diversify the infant universe.....more

https://earthsky.org/space/big-bang-simulation-inflation-reheating-period/

This seems to support my model of an inflationary epoch where the singularity expanded at an initially unrestricted exponential acceleration before the emergent physical laws slowed the process down to SOL.

b) why could it not be an expanding toroidal shape?

Particle creation in a toroidal universe
1. INTRODUCTION

Although current astrophysical observations provide precise information on the geometry of the universe [1], its topology remains a mystery. We don’t even know whether the universe is compact or infinite. Nevertheless, lower bounds can be put on its size for each compact topology (see, [2] and references therein). Amongst the possible topologies for the universe those with some or all spatial dimensions compactified are especially interesting, since then Casimir energies provide an additional contribution to the energy density. This may lead to an interesting vacuum structure for the standard model coupled to gravity which is insensitive to quantum gravity effects [3–5].

The simplest flat topology with all dimensions compactified is a three-torus, and that is the topology we will concentrate on throughout this paper. The scenario of our universe having a three-torus topology was investigated by many authors (see, [6] and references therein). Probably one of the most appealing features of such a model is that the creation of a three-torus universe is much more likely to occur than that of an infinite flat or closed universe [6, 7].

In addition, it has also been shown that a three torus topology can provide convenient initial conditions for inflation [7]. Here we consider gravitational particle creation in an expanding toroidal universe. The particle production formalism was developed in [8–10] and investigated in great detail in later works (see, [11–13] and references therein). Since then, it has been thoroughly studied in the case of a FRW cosmology, including its implications for dark matter creation around the inflationary epoch [14]. However, particle production in a toroidal universe hasn’t been extensively studied (see, [15] for some work on the subject).
.....more

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230568839_Particle_creation_in_a_toroidal_universe.
c) was there an priori dimension of Time for the Sphere to expand into?

How long would you say that this dimension existed before the BB and if the BB was the actual beginning, what type of prior existence would any Time dimension be associated with?

 

[nebel]

a) what was causal to the expanding oblate spherical shape?

b) why could it not be an expanding toroidal shape?

c) was there an priori dimension of Time for the Sphere to expand into?

w4y: Thank you for that gorgeous post.

a) The cause of the emergence at point #4 in time #1, of matter and spacetime, the laws that govern us, belongs into another forum that I dare not tread with authority. Instability in the Dirac sea perhaps?

b) The Sphere model expanding into Time ( the first dimension #1), is just that, a model. The age of bodies, looking at the Hubble Constant, seem to indicate a spherical expanse around us, along the panorama we see in expanding Membrane #3. Imagine the view from some of the more extreme points on the Toroid. Nature has a preference for the shortest path, perhaps even through time, the radius. ps: it would require extreme eccentricity of the mass distribution to create through gravity's time dilation a distorted, present day membrane #3.

c) Energy can not be destroyed or created, therefore it must have always existed. It needed time to exist in, called energytime on this thread's smeit theory. There was no matter and 3D space to hang it into, prior to the Big Bang, #4, so,
The pre-BB time might be imagined to be timespace, #1, the first dimension, and we are moving through it, into the future. In the process, the distances in time are expanding, increasing too , with the expansion of the universe in membrane #3.

How long would you say that this dimension existed before the BB and if the BB was the actual beginning, what type of prior existence would any Time dimension be associated with?

The "Big Bang" , was only the beginning of our universe in the point #4 of endless timespace #1. It comprised undefined energy, or potential. Even an abstract potential would need time to exist in. There was no "actual beginning" of time, timespace or energytime, the " a priory" first dimension.

personal postscript: evolution has imprinted on our minds the concept of beginning. causality. for example, this week it will be 91 years ago that I started moving through time as a breathing entity.

 

[nebel]

model of universe as a sphere expanding into time S E I T

# 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.
SEIT about zeit, page (seite)# 36, post # 681

 

[Write4U]

model of universe as a sphere expanding into time S E I T

I agree that the universe is expanding. I disagree that the universe is expanding into anything.

As far as observable values are concerned, I believe that spacetime is a logically mathematical geometric object. That is why we can symbolize almost all the extant values and functions (equations) into human maths.

I disagree with the concept that there is anything outside the universe, least of all time.
IMO, the universe is allowed to expand because outside the universe there is no space, no time, but only a timeless permittive condition. Without the universe there would be nothing. But nothing is permittive of everything.......

 

[nebel]

Without the universe there would be nothing. But nothing is permittive of everything.......

that is a very narrow concept, reminiscent of the the pre-galilean times, when people believed the earth was everything, with a few lanterns hung in the firmament.
How about indestructible, uncreated energy? Energy that was used to create all the matter that matters in the Big Bang? Energy with no beginning and no end, that needed time to exist in? in timespace for energytime?
with only 13.8 billion years old, we are the new kids on the block. so, please consider

SEIT , a universe modelled as a Sphere expanding into Time.

 

[nebel]

Not necessarily equidistant from the beginning (a perfect circle), but pockets of densities emerging from the original chaotic expansion, which was causal to symmetry breaking.

Raising here the solution to a previous missing explanation or postulat in this SEIT alternative theory (sphere expanding into time). : this illustration by Janus depicts the dimple formed in the :membrane universe #3. by a massive mass. The travel through time of the massive body is slowed, has stopped. the
UNANSWERED QUESTION WAS:

Why do photons, travelling in #3 at "c"with no movement in time, do not make relativistic dimples, get stuck in the past too? like black holes?

The answer is in the word relativistic. The zero time component in time dilation caused by speed, is frame dependant, all in the membrane # 3. the space. whereas
warping of spacetime, getting stuck in time caused by gravity is real, independent of the observer.

 

[Write4U]

Why do photons, travelling in #3 at "c"with no movement in time, do not make relativistic dimples, get stuck in the past too? like black holes?

When you mentioned "photons travelling @ "c" inside a black hole, I wondered if they actually do. If they do then imagine the interior of a black hole where spacetime is curved 180 degrees with an uncountable number of photons circulating inside the BH @ "c".

The answer is in the word relativistic. The zero time component in time dilation caused by speed, is frame dependant, all in the membrane # 3. the space. whereas warping of spacetime, getting stuck in time caused by gravity is real, independent of the observer.

So, does that mean Photons do not travel @ "c" in a BH?

 

[river]

Raising here the solution to a previous missing explanation or postulat in this SEIT alternative theory (sphere expanding into time). : this illustration by Janus depicts the dimple formed in the :membrane universe #3. by a massive mass. The travel through time of the massive body is slowed, has stopped. the
UNANSWERED QUESTION WAS:

Why do photons, travelling in #3 at "c"with no movement in time, do not make relativistic dimples, get stuck in the past too? like black holes?

The answer is in the word relativistic. The zero time component in time dilation caused by speed, is frame dependant, all in the membrane # 3. the space. whereas
warping of spacetime, getting stuck in time caused by gravity is real, independent of the observer.

To your last two statements , to the objects themselves , nothing about them changes . There is no dilation , from the perspective of objects out side . Looking in .

Instead of time I call it movement . Space is needed for any physical thing to exist .

 

[nebel]

"photons travelling @ "c" inside a black hole,

read my lips, these are not photons inside a black hole, but photons in a tangent, not digging into membrane #3 because unlike gravity, their position of non-movement in time#1 does not create, or is represented by a gravity well, or represents a real slowdown in the march of the universe #3 through time.

 

[nebel]

Instead of time I call it movement . Space is needed for any physical thing to exist

In the SEIT model, the universe #3 is indeed on the move, in a radial movement into the future#1. but,
time is not the act of moving, time is the timespace that the universe is moving in, moving on, into. time is the past it came from.
yeah, a black hole singularity has no space so, in that way too, there, you are stuck in time. spacetime, while everyone else moves on. but
photons are free to move, and being confined in the expanding membrane #3 do not age at that tangential velocity. Light is so light, it does not make a dent.

objects themselves , nothing about them changes

that is true only of photons. ( the theme of post 1088). on the other hand, going into a deep gravity well, you will experience real spaghettification, on into the singularity real loss of volume. real increase in density via pressure. ergo:

There is serious dimpling in the universe by massive masses, but smooth sailing for photons, although in both cases

movement through time is zero.

 

[river]

nebel ;

time is not the act of moving, time is the timespace that the universe is moving in, moving on, into. time is the past it came from.

Highlighted

Agreed

time is based on the act of moving by physical real objects . Measured . By what ever standard .

 

[river]

From my post#1090
↑

objects themselves , nothing about them changes

that is true only of photons. ( the theme of post 1088). on the other hand, going into a deep gravity well, you will experience real spaghettification, on into the singularity real loss of volume. real increase in density via pressure. ergo:

There is serious dimpling in the universe by massive masses, but smooth sailing for photons, although in both cases

movement through time is zero.

First highlight

Its true for any object . No matter the form .

to the objects themselves , nothing about them changes . There is no dilation , from the perspective of objects out side . Looking in . The outside objects don't dilate . You just percieve that they do .

 

[nebel]

to the objects themselves , nothing about them changes

You can not be serious to maintain, to assert, that an object ending up in a singularity experiences no change.

in contrast a photon in travel for a long distance does not change. space might expand. the photon not age, tire.

 

[river]

↑

to the objects themselves , nothing about them changes

You can not be serious to maintain, to assert, that an object ending up in a singularity experiences no change.

I'm not . I'm saying there is no singularity in the first place . a singularity is a mathematical invention .

 

[river]

Even gravity waves move away from the source , not towards the Galactic core .

Your vibration theory says what about gravity waves ?

 

[river]

You can not be serious to maintain, to assert, that an object ending up in a singularity experiences no change.

in contrast a photon in travel for a long distance does not change. space might expand. the photon not age, tire.

To your last statement . The energy of the photon is based on its source . A Galaxy , Star , As the source becomes less enegenic the photon energy will have less energy .

 

[nebel]

I'm not . I'm saying there is no singularity in the first place . a singularity is a mathematical invention .

be that as it may, look at the gravity well in post # 1088, not a black hole; still, you would be seriously really squeezed. not just viewed as slower in time.

As the source becomes less energetic the photon energy will have less energy .

once a photon is released, the change in the emitter does not affect the departed particle. The source is left behind ( Einstein's famous look back to the clock on the Church tower) , any change there is immaterial, invisible to the wave speeding ahead at "c".

Gravity: real change,
speed of light: relative observation changes only.

 

[river]

New
↑

I'm not . I'm saying there is no singularity in the first place . a singularity is a mathematical invention .

be that as it may, look at the gravity well in post # 1088, not a black hole; still, you would be seriously really squeezed. not just viewed as slower in time.

Not gravity well but cosmic radiation density and plasma . In a Vortex . Voyager 2 , In 2019 , 5 sensors still active . The Sun's magnetic field intensity was no longer felt . An extremely dense cosmic radiation and plasma was encountered .

There is alot more . From a Nexus Magazine Article , July-August ; 2020 , page 51 , Science News : THE PLASMA UNIVERSE .