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

post 1o8 by nebel.

The broad stroke picture I am trying to paint here, clearly does not define time as the arrow, radius traversed by the membrane, it encompasses all of infinity before and ouside the univeres, allowing for the alleged otherworldly bubble universes somewhere else in time, just as a supposition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Assuming that the exanding membrane is a classical sphere,. There would be no gravity inside, but all the attractive field force outside, whether there would be an entity to feel it or not. Assuming that the nothing sic that thinkers like Carrol, Feinstein and others propose, that the nothing sic has activity, time, that outwardly, into the future-projected force would be in sync, with the outward movement of the membrane which is energy driven.
The proposal is, that the movement into infinite future radially outward from thr origin, is not only a push, energy, but also a possible "pull" affaire.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are again introducing a new time dimension. The horizontal lines of the mesh of the bell-shape in the picture signify the time dimension. If you are moving the entire bell-shape and calling that movement through time, you are making a new time-dimension based on the horizontal position in the picture.

Again, nobody is saying time in modern cosmology cannot be infinite.

The bell isn't necessarily open-ended; there could be a big crunch.

But since the bell denotes the entire universe, you are proposing structures to appear outside of the universe. Are you now also introducing new space dimensions?

Nonsense. You need a mind for memories; the bell does not possess that. That's pictured inside the bell is all energy and matter that's inside the universe.

And all existing things. But more importantly, how can something with zero thickness have an inside?

And thus there would be no causal connection between that structure and the universe, so Occam's Razor lets us disregard the structure entirely.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, so you are retracting that part of post #108, and most of that "paper with a hole" business earlier. Fine with me, let's talk about this new model of yours then.

Gravity does not affect the past, but was present in the past. Your sentence is so badly confused, it's not even wrong.

Which there are none, because they would be outside our universe, with no way to interact with it.

What is a "future-projected force"?

You are once again proposing time travel: things from the future affecting the present == things from a future present affecting a future past.

 

To be clear, the expanding membrane, or so expanding string, of you prefer, are traveling through time. it is not time that is traveling. space has joined time at the big bang, and is travelling through time ever since. still going into the future. and since nothing sic and infinite time are reaching out into the indefinite future, you and I will travel there too. and
since there is no such thing as nothing, any gravitational force inherent in the sphere acts internally, horizontally, but conceivably could act outwardly, pulling in time and the nothing. unconventional thoughts? why not?
Movement through time is universal, time travel a term misunderstood in the context of this mode, that is why I avoided it. I hope to krrp going for another decade plus.
Models predict, let the chips fall where they may.

 

Citing Pauli is cute, but a classical hollow sphere, has no gravity inside. In the ESM model, there was never gravity inside the growing in size membrane. Even in the center of the possible white hole singularity, there was no gravity. Gravity is always on the outside (at least most of it).
Yes it was present inside the membrane, but that is the now, not the past.

I have been very careful to forge every word to conform to the many features of the Expanding Sphere Membrane model. My limited language skills did not help you to discern the fine points right away, but you are getting there. perhaps the close to 5 k views are getting the picture too, not just applauding your attempts to sink the sphere.
The only slip I can think of is, when I mentioned that gravity might draw in, attract time, sorry, wrong picture, I retracted that. gravity might give traction to the space, mass, in its travel outward toward the future. will come to that now:

 

prediction: for what it's worth:
In the ESM model, time is indefinite, everywhere, always present. Accordingly, in our current universe, the 4 spacetime dimensions are confined to the membrane, however, time is different, kind of stretching out, existing unbroken back to infinity and into the future too. now,
If spacetime is warped, tensioned, accelerated by mass and energy, that attractive force can not leave the confinement of the 2D curved membrane . But why would it not in the normal 1/d^2 manner apply to the one dimension, time, that is not confined to the membrane? at least 1/4 of the effect should project out into the future!
If there is Nothing sic and infinite time in the future, it should be affected by gravity, the result of mass and energy.
Energy and Mass warp future time. seen outside the membrane of the ESM model.

ps: The inverse square projection of Gravity in to the future is not just that of a force without having something to attract, a hook into so to speak. Nothing sic has content, energy even, virtual particles, time to do it in. It would provide traction, outward pull to the memebrane and its content, similarly to a maglev train being attracted forward.

 

The ESM model is a geometrical construct. points, lines, planes have zero lateral dimensions. For example, you can calculate the area of a circle, the volume of a sphere of a given size , without having to worry about the thickness or not of the pencil line, membrane describing it right? and

a propo spacetime: the ESM model does not negate it's existence, it merely projets the time component beyond the confines of our present universe.

 

Ah, I see where the confusing is coming from! No, in English "time travel" doesn't mean that time is travelling, it means that some object is travelling through time at "speeds" that it shouldn't be. In other words, if something goes back in time a few days, something which isn't allowed by our current interpretation of the laws of physics, we call that "time travel". If an object "teleports" into the future by a hundred years, we call that "time travel".

This is your assertion; modern cosmology makes no such claim.

Space joined time, and is now travelling through time? Spacetime is travelling through itself? How does that make any sense?

Except that's not how gravity works.

Time has no physical presence, and thus cannot be attracted by gravity.

Unless you are now also proposing a completely new type of gravity?

Unconventional thoughts are fine, but you are redefining all kinds of concepts such as spacetime and gravity, while not being able to back up any of it with evidence or proof. It seems counterproductive to me to throw out established science, only to replace it with pure conjecture.

Ah, you've spotted this as well. Good. For the record, when I've been using the term "time travel" in this thread, I have always meant it to mean what I've written above.

But do your models really have predictive power? You are seemingly just making assertions that don't follow from them (at least, not from the models you have proposed here).

You are equating a physical sphere with a conceptual sphere. The sphere in the ESM model has no physical presence, and thus isn't affected by gravity, nor does it exert it itself. And there is gravity inside the sphere: there was gravity in the past, so there is gravity at smaller radii.

Gravity is not from the future (in fact, that violates causality), so this is false.

And a couple of seconds later, that "now" has become the past. Does gravity magically disappear when time passes? It'd argue that, since literally all possible effects of gravity are still there in the past, it is meaningless to argue gravity isn't anymore.

I'm not trying to "sink the sphere". But in fact, you might already have done that yourself. Remember in post #200 where you said that the universe is bell-shaped? A bell isn't a sphere.

You do know that things also travel to the future just fine without gravity, right?

This is a contradiction in terms. Time is part of spacetime, so if time is infinity, so if spacetime. If time stretched out, so does spacetime.

You just said that the 4 spacetime dimensions are confined to the membrane. That would make the membrane (at least) 4D. You are once again contradicting yourself.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What is "the normal 1/d^2 manner", and how does it apply to a dimension?

Gravity does not affect the future, so that's false.

If that's true, then your ESM model is in violent conflict with establish science and experimental data, and should be rejected on that basis.

You keep asserting that gravity magically affects the future. Do you have any evidence for this?

(If you are calculating the volume of a 3D sphere in three dimensions, you are using its "thickness". But other than that, you are right.)

Yes, and that violates the concept of spacetime.

 

Try this analogy: There is this quiet pond surface called time, really big pond, reaches beyond the comprehension horizon. A pebble drops in it at point called Big Bang. now there is a circular energy wave spreading out from big bang. it is a rotating wave, 3D obviously, but moving through time too, the original 1st dimension. Or,
The car analogy. there is this freeway called I-1-time. amazing imaginary scenery. At an on ramp, marked Big Bang (not big bend), a new car, , named universe. just assembled, merges into the one way lanes, and heads in the direction of future. The tires have good traction, Although the car goes at the limit of 70mph, the tires touch the interstate called time at zero speed. For a brief moment they are joined as one, but nothing is forever.
spacetime is a peculiar concept, it assumes that there never was a quiet pond, or a newly paved road, never traveled on before. interesting, but parallel ideas exist.

Perhaps not, but I am latching on to the idea, that the nothing sic, that always existed in infinite time is not empty, but contains assumed virtual particles, dark energy, and that it could be affected, if force field effects on it, spread with time into the future. If the time in spacetime is affected by mass, energy, and time in the ESM model really
[QUOTE

is a separable dimension, spreading out into the future away from the convex surface. who is to say that these relativistic effects do not carry into the future? perpendicularly, normal to the membrane?
proposition: the model does not rule out future time to be warped by mass and energy.

You really do not get it. Time is indefinite, space is not, Space is only temporarily ( from the french "temps=time) linked to time in the now we live in. space is not eternal in the past, or look back time, time period.

because? how so?
The ESM model merely proposes that preceding the onset of spacetime there was time. There was always nothing. The model merely adds to the spacetime concept, in that there is already future time stretching into infinity, ready to embrace space to create a temporary space time union.
I think, spacetime is alive and well as it is wedged in, at the "now" of the ESM model's membrane.
You worry too much about spacetime, it is secure, , solidly existing in the eternal time before and after it, in the infinite future of time.

 

Thank you JamesR.
Just in case Time turns out to be indefinite, eternal, we have not just a model, but as of now, yet another theory to fall back on.

 

There is never gravity inside an empty spherical cavity. The forces balance out not just in the center, but right up to the inside walls. It is called the law of spheres I think, was discussed here. There was, is, gravity in the ESM, but is acting inside the membrane, horizontally, and on the outside nothing sic.
There never was gravity acting inside of the smaller , expanding spheres.. The inside "volume" is a clean slate once the membrane has passed outwardly into the future.

Unless you suggest that the passing of the membrane left wrinkles in time. not a bad supposition. really.

 

Nebel said: : If spacetime is warped, tensioned, accelerated by mass and energy, that attractive force can not leave the confinement of the 2D curved membrane .
QUOTE="NotEinstein, post: 3496184, member: 286668"]You just said that the 4 spacetime dimensions are confined to the membrane. That would make the membrane (at least) 4D. You are once again contradicting yourself.[/QUOTE]
.
How so? I never said that.meant that. read it again please. instead: 2D representing 3D moving through the 4. st.Dimension. you are still stuck in spacetimethink.
The membrane, representing the 3 dimensions and their content, curve in the 4st dimension of infinite time. without that 4st dimension there would be nothing to curve in. besides, since the membrane is moving through the 4st dimension, although it never stops to hang on, the now is an amalgam of the 3 dimensions and time. The 1st dimension always existed, adding the traveling 3 makes it 4 !, even if only temporarily.
the 3 dimensions and its content of energy, matter and laws would not exist if they did not have time to do so . 4D at it's best.

 

Careful: the surface of a pond is 2 dimensional, and time (typically) isn't. 2 of the 3 dimensions of your 3D wave in this analogy are time-dimensions. Also, I don’t see how this explains anything related to time coupling to space forming spacetime?

This again does nothing for explaining how time and space merged.

That's not an assumption related to spacetime. As I've said multiple times to you now: we don't know what there was before spacetime, if such a thing even is coherent. You are the one that keeps assuming that spacetime didn't exist before the BB.

Please explain to me how you can talk about the emptiness of some physical realm, without it having any space.

All those require space to exist, so you are contradicting your own claim that space didn't exist before the BB.

Do you see the contradiction? How can time exist as part of spacetime, yet also be a separable dimension?

Well, seeing as it's your model, I think you would be the person that needs to demonstrate that this happens?

But as far as I know, there is (and you haven't provided any) no evidence to suggest that this is happening.

Yes, you keep asserting that with no evidence, but my point is that there is no known mechanism for space and time to combine into spacetime. You are claiming that is possible, without providing anything to suggest how it even could happen in principle.

Because the concept of spacetime demands time is always coupled with space, that one cannot exist without being coupled to the other. Your model explicitly doesn't conform to that. Which is fine, but that means it's not talking about the same type of spacetime the theory of general relativity is. Which also means the huge amount of evidence for the existence of (GR's) spacetime isn't necessarily evidence for the existence of your model's spacetime. In fact, due to the differences between the models, a lot of the evidence in favor of GR may turn out to be also evidence against your model!

And the addition creates severe problems that can only be resolved by completely re-defining a lot of concepts.

You still haven't explained how that is even possible, how that union happens.

I think, spacetime is alive and well as it is wedged in, at the "now" of the ESM model's membrane.
You worry too much about spacetime,[/QUOTE]
I would argue you don't worry enough about it!

Except that spacetime (as defined by GR) covers all of space and time (per definition), so the time before and after it must also be part of it.

I suppose you are re-defining spacetime to allow for this, just as you are re-defining gravity to affect future time, dark matter and virtual particles so they can exist without space, etc. On top of that, you need a whole new alternative to GR, and your model is more restrictive in the types of universes it can describe than GR. There is also no evidence backing any of it up, and for most things, there cannot even be any evidence (see all the mentions of Occam’s Razor). At that point, I have to wonder what you think this model brings to the table (of science)?

As long are you are using "theory" in the colloquial sense: sure!

That's true for a physical spherical cavity. Your membrane is not physical, as I've stated before.

There are no forces, because forces do not extend through time like that.

Yes, and I have told you multiple times why it doesn't apply here.

Exactly, gravity cannot affect the past or future like that. Let's take the size of the membrane to be r=100. Gravity at that point in time can only affect things at r=100. But now the membrane grows to r=200. Gravity at that point in time can only affect things at r=200. However, the gravity at r=100 doesn't magically disappear. Its effects are still there (frozen in time). For all intents and purposes, gravity is still present at r=100.

There's nothing "clean" about it. It's frozen, no changes can be made to it anymore, because it's the past.

I do not, for time cannot wrinkle.

Post #207: You said: "the 4 spacetime dimensions are confined to the membrane," and only a single sentence later, you are talking about the same membrane calling it "the 2D curved membrane". You have clearly stated that all 4 spacetime dimensions are contained within the membrane, and that the membrane is 2D.

Ah, you misspoke; I accept your correction. And have you considered that I’m "stuck in spacetimethink", because that's all there is any evidence for?

(Technically false; space can curve without a time dimension, but I get what you mean.)

Again, please provide a mechanism for the creation and destruction of (space) dimensions, and of the merged of space and time dimensions.

That is as true for your model as for GR, so that's neither here nor there.

 

let me rephrase that.
inflation explained by simple geometry in the Expanding Sphere Membrane model (we place a string in that membrane to simplify it).
In the second second of the universe's movement through time, the length of the string doubled. from 3.14 to 6.28 CUs (or double, or half that?) let us call them Circumferential Units. The length of that string on the membrane, if the movement through time is constant, would still increase by the same 3,14 CUs. per second today, but that would be added to a length of ~10^15 CUs. In other words
in the Expanding Sphere Membrane model, the rate of the universe's early expansion was ~10 to the 15th power greater than it is today.
Good thing the inflationary period happened earlier. happy now?

 

Ah, OK, but that's not inflation. During inflation the universe expanded exponentially, i.e. the expansion rate went up, not down. Additionally, this points out another thing: your expansion rate seems to slow down a lot over time, while we observe that it doesn't (in fact, it's speeding up). So the time-units that you are using here are wrong.

In other words, your model is incompatible with observations, unless your "constant movement through time" doesn't result in a linear passing of time.

 

How can time itself be a source of energy? Are you re-defining the word "energy" too now?

In your post #215 you clearly state that the relative expansion rate always slows down, which is not what happened during inflation, and it's not what is happening in our universe today. If the increase in radius corresponds in a linearly with the passage of time, then your model would be falsified.

 

based on some current trends, the understanding is, there always was nothing, in other words, time is infinite and there never was such a thing as absolute emptiness, nothing has been found to be nothing sic.
the membrane could well be moving through both eternal time and nothingsic.

The geometric model pictures the ground state conditions so to speak. of course energy appearing out of the nothingness of the vacuum would drive up the expansion. the model does not forbid that. The inflation theory is a theory invented to account for the cross-universe thermal conformity. The existence of the Hyper expansion inherit in the basic geometry 10^15 fold, eliminates the need for that supposition (to misquote Lapace).
the ESM, eternal time, nothingsic, ,--side by side with the finite spacetime gives you a 100% chance to be right. In case that time is eternal, and we move through time, you would be 100% wrong.

 

If there always was nothing sic then there was no time bop. How could there be time bop if there was nothing sic. So therefore time bop is not infinite nobby-nobby boing.