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

That's the "gaming" that the fringe proponents have learned to do. Start a thread with a question (play dumb) and then halfway though the discussion they jump on some minute point and manage to shift the discussion to the fringe.

Now we are talking about inflation valves on balloons, the fact that there are other kinds of balloons and misinterpreting the Big Bang illustration and throwing in terms like "a dot on a slice of time and not space".

We're talking about "your view that there is no center" when it's not "your" view but rather the mainstream view that the whole explanation is based on.

I don't see that having the fringe sections has resulted in cleaning up the science sections. All it has done is draw more fringe to the site and it has made every forum a fringe forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Personally (but I don't want to get too involved in this forums politics), I'd say that if a thread was made in bad faith (or can reasonably assumed to be, based on the history of the OP, and the way the thread evolved), it should be moved to the fringe section (or even cesspool), and the OP should be infracted. Essentially, bad behavior ought to be punished.

Yes, it's been a wild ride, for some reason. Even I don't really know how we ended up here...

Personally, I would like to see fringe being actually restricted to the fringe sections. For example, there appear to be members that are only interested in fringe and pseudo-science, and are (for whatever reason) unable to talk about anything else. I think we should be "helpful in pointing the way", and restrict these members' ability to post outside of said sections.

But it's for the moderation (and administration) to make such decisions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the balloon analogy, (minus the nipple). The sphere would have been expanding away from the point in time where it all started. Origin. The non-existing past would be in the empty inside , the not yet existing future outside of the 2 dimensional skin , in which everything exists and happens.
In that model would there not be directions on a great circle path between any two entities? since you do not have to go through any nipple? (part of the question in the OP?
Would not the skin move at right angles, in a radius direction , and would that not be a good picture of moving from the origin into the future? time being fundamental.
Expanding because of energy in the system, not more air but hotter air?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, you are right, and that's why the balloon analogue is an analogue, and not a proper description of what really happens. When in doubt, just use the FRW metric and go from there.

There are actually infinitely many paths between two dots on the skin of the balloon, even when you only take into account straight paths.

True.

No. In the analogue, only the skin of the balloon matters, not the insides. It's a 2D spacetime (the skin), that stretches. There is not "center point" on the skin in any meaningful way.

That's another place the analogue breaks down: the universal expansion is not driven by gas pressure, so there's not direct correspondence between the two.

 

I edited to read great circle (shortest, least time path,) complicated by the fact that the information comes from a former, smaller sphere. but a great circle remains a great circle evn with inflation?

is there not the center point in time? origin,? although not any more in skinny , curved space?

Just a limp comparison, All the energy, movement in the skin is an expression of, a contributor to the expansion, but if there is energy to the vacuum, even the now empty inside would have energy pushing the skin into the future. or?

 

If you restrict yourself to the shortest path, then there is (typically) only one path between two different points in space, in which case the answer to the OP becomes "no, there is (typically) only one path."

I don't see how that matter, so I also don't see how that complicates it?

That's because everything just scales. The shortest path gets longer with a factor that is not larger than any other path, so it will remain the shortest path. If I take a globe of the planet Earth, one small and one large, and I draw the shortest path between two cities on both, the path will follow the same trajectory (i.e. pass the same places on Earth).

Since in many mainstream models time is infinite (into the future), there is no center point. There are models where time ends, though, so it's not impossible.

The origin is the starting point, not a center point.

True; the balloon analogue doesn't give insights into the properties of time in our universe.

No, because the insides of the balloon are not part of the analogue.

 

If time is a 4st dimension, and is fundamental, the universe has moved through time from the starting point, a point in an indefinite realm. I think there is a difference between thinking of "time" as a dimension , and moving through time, as we have been doing for 13.8 B years?
I asked from the OP to be moved to the appropriate section.

 

The universe hasn't been moving through time; time is part of the universe.

Yes, the biggest difference is that the first is a definition, the latter more like an action.

 

The definition of a realm, but the action of an entity existing in that realm?

 

Your grammar is broken; I don't know what you are trying to say.

But let's try an analogue: do you think there is a difference between a mile (distance), and running a mile?

 

I did not say that. I said a "slice of time" , meaning a slice of time in an expanding space. A 2 D plane of spacetime, which at each instant in time is expanding and spreading any imaginary dots further apart.

I did not bring up the balloon example, but like NotEinstein I am ready to explore possible similarities or concepts which might yield deeper understanding of our universe.

As far as discussing mainstream science of the size or shape of the universe, the matter is far from settled. Do you have something to add or question or do you expect blind repetition of current mainstream science ad infinitum?

IMO, that would be boring and would not yield greater knowledge or understanding.
True understanding of something comes from examining that something from different perspectives, which eventually sort themselves out in what is possible or impossible. The links I quoted were proposed by recognized cosmologists, which I assume do know the current state of mainstream cosmology.

Remember the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"? From Wiki;

Answering the proposition with "that's wrong" without explaining why it has been proven wrong, but only with "it is not mainstream" doesn't tell me anything except the current state of knowledge, which is far from complete.

 

And please do consider my statements or quotes as "probing", rather than statements of fact.

 

thank you for the help. Fitting analogy: Time in the expanding sphere model would be the mile. a unit in the radial direction. Running the mile would be the part of movement, that any given particle underwent in it's journey from the original BB point in time to the present periphery position.*
It boils down to: what is moving, time, or the watcher of the watch, who just sees how far he has gone. like the kilometer counter on your speedometer. wish we could reset the real time counter that way, right?. The road , time, is stationary, the cars are moving, not the other way around imho.
* since movement through time is dependant on your velocity through space, would your mile runner move at different rates through that radius?

 

Write4U: Can I interpret your silence as agreement with my comments?

 

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by the "a unit in the radial direction." part, but the rest is correct/

Time is "passing by", it's not moving in the sense that it's changing space-position.

In broad lines, I see it in the same way. Things are moving through time; time isn't itself moving. As in: the scale doesn't move or change, objects are moving along the scale. It's like putting a giant ruler next to the road: when the car moves, the value you read of the ruler changes, but the ruler itself doesn't change.

Probably, but it's extremely difficult to come up with time dilation and length contraction analogues. This isn't meant to be one, so it probably breaks down there.

 

indeed. it would be a very mountainous landscape that skin, with every moving object tracing a path of differing time radius. Black holes even centering depressions that are pinholes reaching back toward the big Bang.

reminds me of an disconcerting incident, over San Francisco airport, looking out the window I could see the stationary earth passing by, faster and faster as we descended on approach, then appeared another plane over the next runway, lined up besides us, bobbing up and down, forward and receding , as two time travellers in their different circumstances. time is passing by only because of our window pov.

An ideal stationary object on the skin would proscribe a radius on its travel from the original point into the future. Your model mile would be only a section of it. The timeline of a normal entity would be a spiral. convoluted even.

Another naive question: Since even at the scale of the cosmos, for every mile in the radius time dimension, the total length of the great circle increases by only 6.28 miles. How does affect everything? the flatness?

 

Yes. But perhaps not as you analyze it.

I believe mainstream cosmology assumes that we live on an expanding and curving 2D plane. Is that correct?

IMO, this does not necessarily demand an internal expanding force stretching the universal 2D plane outward. This is assumption is contained in the balloon example, which assumes an internal inflationary energy which forces the 2D balloon skin (spacetime) outward. To me this presents a paradox.

In a toroid the hole lies at its center but is causal to the stretching (unfolding) of the curving 2D skin itself and has no inflationary force of space inside the skin itself, i.e. a hollow doughnut skin without (rising) dough inside it. Which resolves the paradox.

Actually I metioned the toroidal (doughnut) shaped universe not in context of a balloon , but as another alternative form of an infinite universe which also might possibly provide answers to a lot of questions about curvature, expansion and contraction, dark matter (causal inward gravitation), dark energy (cauasal dynamical outward force) and such hypotheses as CDT (causal dynamical triangulation), which attempts to explain the unfolding of spacetime itself, without needing to justify an "internal" inflationary force.

However, a toroid would assume that there is a center to our universe, a type of wormhole which would feed (expand) a curving universal spacetime fabric from inside the doughnut wormhole outward and after passing the equator beginning to curve inward (contracting) back toward the center and all matter eventually being swallowed up back into the black hole side of the doughnut wormhole, in effect forming an endless recycling loop of creation and destruction of space and matter.

i.e. a central gravitational point in the wormhole where all matter becomes so condensed that it converts back to pure energy which is released as what today we assume to be a single event of the BB, but is actually a continual process of feeding dynamical energy to the fabric of space, a white hole, which feeds and expands a curving spacetime until the cooling poses a limit to expansion, whereupon the spacetime fabric begins to curve (shrink) back toward the gravitational center of universe, a black hole, after passing the limit of dynamical expansion (the equator), where, back in the center of the toroid's wormhole matter is converted back into pure energy and released at the other side of the wormhole as a white hole, rejuvinating the 2D skin of the toroid. An endless loop from the inside of the wormhole outward and curving from the outside back inward toward the wormhole. No paradox.

The difference to a bell (or a balloon) shaped universe and a toroidal universe is that slices of time in a toroid would be drawn horizontally, whereas in a bell shaped universe the slices of time are drawn vertically in the hypothetical illustrations as shown in the links. Although neither would violate the emergence of time along with the dynamical function of the universe.

But the picture of an energy exhausted universe where physical things are so far apart from each other that they merely drift aimlessly in an infinite ocean of non energetic space and time, just does not exite my imagination. Where would the original energy of the BB come from?

A toroidal universe would be one explanation and also account for a possible multiverse and instead of a final expenditure of thermodynamic activity, it would strictly answer to the law of conservation of energy.

 

Black holes do not "reach back toward the big Bang".

So you agree with me that time itself isn't moving. Good.

I still don't understand what you are talking about. What "skin"? Why would a timeline of a "normal entity" be a spiral? What do you mean by "convoluted"?

What is a "mile in the radius time dimension"? Are you mixing distances with time intervals?

 

No, that is wrong. Mainstream cosmology states that we live in a universe with 3+1 (3 space and 1 time) dimensions.

This is incoherent. If the universe is 2D, there is no internal space for there to be in internal expanding force (like the balloon skin).

The balloon's skin can be seen as a 2D surface, but (and this is where the analogue breaks down) it's really a 3D object.

A paradox that doesn't exist in mainstream cosmology.

But is there any evidence that we live in such a universe?

Note that a bell and a balloon are two completely different shapes, especially in the context of this thread.

What is the "dynamical function of the universe"?

That's a terrible argument. "I don't find it interesting, therefore it's not true"?

This is a problem that every model of the universe must address. Where did the original energy for the toroidal universe come from?

It wouldn't account for a possible multiverse, as it's only a single universe itself.

 

In black holes, movement through time comes to zero. that point in time (and space) is not moving on the "radius", and the point tear in space would describe a line in the radial direction. a point left behind, and lost to the" skinny "2D universe.

In any expanding surface=skin, a line will become a spiral as the surface increases as it passes through time . The curvature of such a spiral would begreater near the beginning, and become flatter in the now. but in an expanding universe. decreasing "curvature" is present or?