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

[nebel]

The outward expansion can be solved by rotating the sphere. If the sphere had enough integrity then the center mass wouldn't be needed. It would have to rotate at an accelerated rate though.

interesting idea moved over from the main amateur astronomy forum.
There is no evidence that the universe as a whole is rotating, but any movement in whatever direction imaginary "prograde" or not, would generate a centrifugal force pushing outward, radially toward the future. but that universe, membrane moving through energytime #1, can feed the expansion anyway, from energy leftover from the BB.
As far as time is concerned, mass has moved out of the centre, concentrated it was at the BB point in time.

 

[gamelord]

Are you comparing the sun to the BB.? i.e. as a spherical expansion from a singularity? that would give the universe a center just like the sun is the center of our solar system.

Is the unverse spherical with the BB at its center? But the diameter of the universe is 93 billion lightyears across in this slice of time and that would place the BB at 46.5 billion light years away and not 14.7 billion (light) years at the half-way point which would be the BB and I believe this is what the original poster asked.
Can you answer the question better? Please help me out.

It makes no sense that the Universe is both 14.7 billion years old, and 40+ billion light years in radius.
This would indicate that the Fabric of the universe has accelerated 3x faster than light speed.
Either one of these theories is wrong. The law that nothing can accelerate faster than light speed must be wrong, or the idea the universe is only 14.7 billion years old must be wrong.
I have often heard theories saying that "The Fabric of the Universe is the only thing that can accelerate faster than light speed."
But what is the "Fabric of the Universe" exactly? Because it implies that the BB was not merely an explosion of Particles, but rather, an explosion of Fabric that the particles seem to reside in. If the Fabric is indeed a real substance, then, in order to have SuperLuminal Drive, all we need to is use the Fabric.

Here is what BBC scientists have to say, and they mostly admit that they (and many other scientists) may be wrong, and I may be right.
Source: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160610-it-took-centuries-but-we-now-know-the-size-of-the-universe
Even the name of the article is hubris. Because the article clearly states they are unsure and do not know the size of the universe.
Article:
"Now comes the big key to our puzzle. The most redshifted light we can detect in the observable Universe suggests that light has reached us from galaxies that are 13.8 billion years old.

Because this is the oldest light we have detected, that also gives us a measurement for the age of the Universe itself.




There are huge numbers of galaxies out there (Credit: NASA/ESA)



But over the last 13.8 billion years, the Universe has been continually expanding – and at first it did so very rapidly. Taking that into account, astronomers have worked out that the galaxies right on the edge of the observable Universe, whose light has taken 13.8 billion years to reach us, must now be 46.5 billion light years away.

One possibility is that, somewhere, a few of our calculations are not quite right

That is our best measurement for the radius of the observable Universe. Doubling it, of course, gives the diameter: 93 billion light years.

This figure rests on many other measurements and bits of science, and it is the culmination of centuries of work. But, as Casey notes, it is still a little rough.

For one thing, given the complexity of some of the oldest galaxies we can detect, it is not clear how they were able to form so quickly after the Big Bang. One possibility is that, somewhere, a few of our calculations are not quite right.

"If one of the rungs of the cosmic distance ladder is off by 10%, then everything's off by 10%, because they rely on each other," says Casey.
No actually errors accumulate, usually exponentially. So if one calculation is off by 10% the the whole idea at the end of the day may end up being off by 70%, or 30%, depending on the methodologies used.

The whole Universe is roughly 250 times as large as the observable Universe

And where things get really complex is when we try to think about the Universe beyond that which is observable. The "whole" Universe, as it were. Depending on which theory of the shape of the Universe you prefer, the whole Universe could actually be finite or infinite.

Recently, Mihran Vardanyan and colleagues at the University of Oxford in the UK analysed known data about objects in the observable Universe, to see if they could work out anything about the shape of the whole Universe.

The result, after using computer algorithms to look for meaningful patterns in the data, was a new estimate. The whole Universe is at least 250 times as large as the observable Universe."​

 

[Write4U]

It makes no sense that the Universe is both 14.7 billion years old, and 40+ billion light years in radius.
This would indicate that the Fabric of the universe has accelerated 3x faster than light speed.
Either one of these theories is wrong. The law that nothing can accelerate faster than light speed must be wrong, or the idea the universe is only 14.7 billion years old must be wrong.
I have often heard theories saying that "The Fabric of the Universe is the only thing that can accelerate faster than light speed."
But what is the "Fabric of the Universe" exactly? Because it implies that the BB was not merely an explosion of Particles, but rather, an explosion of Fabric that the particles seem to reside in. If the Fabric is indeed a real substance, then, in order to have SuperLuminal Drive, all we need to is use the Fabric.

Here is what BBC scientists have to say, and they mostly admit that they (and many other scientists) may be wrong, and I may be right.
Source: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160610-it-took-centuries-but-we-now-know-the-size-of-the-universe
Even the name of the article is hubris. Because the article clearly states they are unsure and do not know the size of the universe.
Article:
"Now comes the big key to our puzzle. The most redshifted light we can detect in the observable Universe suggests that light has reached us from galaxies that are 13.8 billion years old.

Because this is the oldest light we have detected, that also gives us a measurement for the age of the Universe itself.




There are huge numbers of galaxies out there (Credit: NASA/ESA)



But over the last 13.8 billion years, the Universe has been continually expanding – and at first it did so very rapidly. Taking that into account, astronomers have worked out that the galaxies right on the edge of the observable Universe, whose light has taken 13.8 billion years to reach us, must now be 46.5 billion light years away.

One possibility is that, somewhere, a few of our calculations are not quite right

That is our best measurement for the radius of the observable Universe. Doubling it, of course, gives the diameter: 93 billion light years.

This figure rests on many other measurements and bits of science, and it is the culmination of centuries of work. But, as Casey notes, it is still a little rough.

For one thing, given the complexity of some of the oldest galaxies we can detect, it is not clear how they were able to form so quickly after the Big Bang. One possibility is that, somewhere, a few of our calculations are not quite right.

"If one of the rungs of the cosmic distance ladder is off by 10%, then everything's off by 10%, because they rely on each other," says Casey.
No actually errors accumulate, usually exponentially. So if one calculation is off by 10% the the whole idea at the end of the day may end up being off by 70%, or 30%, depending on the methodologies used.

The whole Universe is roughly 250 times as large as the observable Universe

And where things get really complex is when we try to think about the Universe beyond that which is observable. The "whole" Universe, as it were. Depending on which theory of the shape of the Universe you prefer, the whole Universe could actually be finite or infinite.

Recently, Mihran Vardanyan and colleagues at the University of Oxford in the UK analysed known data about objects in the observable Universe, to see if they could work out anything about the shape of the whole Universe.

The result, after using computer algorithms to look for meaningful patterns in the data, was a new estimate. The whole Universe is at least 250 times as large as the observable Universe."​

I like the exponential function explanation. Even at 1% steady growth per year it would take the universe only 70 years to double in size. In 14.7 billion years the universe would have doubled in size 14.7 billion/70 times and I don't have the ability to compute the size on my computer.
But it would be a staggering number.

Consider that if we place 1 grain on the first square of a chessboard and double that for each square the total grains on the 64th square would be 2^64 - 1

The problem may be solved using simple addition. With 64 squares on a chessboard, if the number of grains doubles on successive squares, then the sum of grains on all 64 squares is: 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ... and so forth for the 64 squares. The total number of grains equals 18,446,744,073,709,551,615, much higher than most expect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem

This is about 1,645 times the global production of wheat in 2014 (729,000,000 metric tons).[8]

 

[nebel]

"Now comes the big key to our puzzle. The most redshifted light we can detect in the observable Universe suggests that light has reached us from galaxies that are 13.8 billion years old.

Because this is the oldest light we have detected, that also gives us a measurement for the age of the Universe itself.

In the expanding membrane sphere model, only the expansion through time is displayed. and that gives a radius of 13,8 billion years, a diameter of 28 billion years, a circumference of 85 billion years, and leaves only 3/4 of the universe beyond our horizon. No matter how fast you go through space, or space itself expands, you go only one year at a time through time, he first dimension.
The exponential growth, chessboard-like, is one way to have a big universe, in the per second growth time scenario, the universe doubled in the first seconds, but now grows only by 6.28 x 300 000 km per second, it is really getting flat. But then simplicity was a feature of the past, the old.

 

[nebel]

And where things get really complex is when we try to think about the Universe beyond that which is observable. The "whole" Universe, as it were. Depending on which theory of the shape of the Universe you prefer, the whole Universe could actually be finite or infinite.

On this thread several opinions have been tabled why a pre-big bang condition might be infinite. a ) energytime.-- energy can not be created or destroyed, so it must be fundamental, energy like anything else can not exist without having time to do it's thing in, so time must be infinite, fundamental too. Time should have special space, non directional to exist in, call it timespace. Now we live in spacetime, if Einstein is right, but we might also call it mattertime, because at the BB some of the eternal energy converted into matter, which matters to us. b) gravity, a product of energy & matter, falls off at the inverse of the distance, so it never comes to zero, so it reaches into the indefinite future, and of course time with it. Energy was required to produce the BB, so it must have existed with gravity before that in one form or another, and still does.

The whole Universe is roughly 250 times as large as the observable Universe

The 2 universal expansion ideas side by side are the Early Inflation theory, --big right away--, like the sausage model, and the chessboard suggestion where it does not increase much in the beginning but becomes a run away monster in the later, our time.
The sphere expanding through time model, proposes a middle ground. The movement through is constant, one second at a time, and the same amount of increase in radius happened each second. That made the universe double in the first 2 seconds, but adds 0nly a 1/ 10^-36 each second now. the big increase is over, and it have happened as shown by high school level geometry.
.

 

[Hayden]

But who concluded that these galaxies would merge?

 

[nebel]

But who concluded that these galaxies would merge?

sorry can not link, but if you search in December 2017 ALMA, there were several news stories on the moving galaxies. But the thread has moved from that questions into wider fields of look back time and time period. Alma is in the news again with looking at planets forming around stars.

 

[Hayden]

My dear friend, if ALMA saw the galaxies before merging, that implies that galaxies were on a merging path at least. Has ALMA been able to capture the light post merging, or it is still awaited or merging itself is on course? Just asking.

Our lifespan is too small a period for before merging and after merging light detection.

 

[nebel]

Our lifespan is too small a period for before merging and after merging light detection.

You are absolutely correct, The Milky Way and Andromeda are on a merging course too, to close in 4 billion years from now.
I learned through this discussion that the images of the accomplished merger would have to travel even further than the ones we captured, continuing expansion being one reason , and we will not be able to see the same event coming from the other side , the long way around. Because the situation of the finished merger would be newer, having come after the approach we registered, would that picture not already have bypassed us? or are the pictures of the accomplished merger or bypass still in the pipeline?

 

[nebel]

"The dinosaurs are all out there somewhere in the past doing dinosaur stuff, we're all here now and all of the future is out there somewhere in space-time too."

copied from a current article " building a time machine" on BBC world news.
This thread, about the universe, matter expanding through time does not support the "Block of time" idea. our time is now, moving along, as the article too mentions, too, kind of.

 

[nebel]

Sorry, these quotes are not from New Scientist but BBC (same accent) :
BBC:"Ron Mallett built a device that illustrates principles he believes could be used to build a time machine"
"The generally accepted view is that the Universe is an unchanging "block" of space-time; this idea arises directly from Einstein's equations." from BBC but bold added.
In a way, the expanding through time sphere model uses this "block" time concept by calling it timespace. but
It has no feature, no dinosaurs lurking in the past, because the past timespace "block" is empty, but fossils have passed into the present. The future timespace"block" contains energy though, as has the distant past.
Can somebody link?

 

[nebel]

just like to point out a cross reference: In this thread,
The Expanding Sphere Model of the mass of the universe moving through time relegates gravity into the future domaine.
In the "Jupiter cancelled velocity" thread in the main amateur astronomy forum,
A calculation of Orbits is found to work with time only, without gravity,
a similarity between the 2 threads, possibly block time, or timespace linking them both.

 

[nebel]

https://mk0astronomynow9oh6g.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/bigbang_expansion_ringing.gif
brought this over from the appropriately titled "The age of the universe" thread by hayden, this contribution from Write4U and seattle
The animation, apart from the pulsing, shows an universe that has remained the ~same size for the last 13 billion years.
Does not the Hubble constant predict greater expansion gradually happening all the way to the past, and do the deep field, long exposures Hubble images not show a denser matter content in the past too? so,
consider that the alternative, the expanding sphere model, is valid, in many aspects.

 

[nebel]

From the "Isotropic Universe" thread:
Quotes by Not Einstein↑
"By whom?"


below a partial quote from New Scientist July 12 2017 " 5 things physicists hate "

"Infinity
Mathematicians are pretty convinced that infinity exists. In fact, there’s not just one infinity, but an infinite number of infinities of varying sizes. And there’s nothing mathematicians like better than to invent new levels of infinity to plug logical holes in their subject. For physicists, though, infinity is a pain in the proverbial. Infinities are unruly quantities that tend to blow up any theory they appear in.--"

stop expansion:
↑

Not. Einstein. : "Why would it?"
The Hilbert paradox notwithstanding, once an entity has reached infinite size, how could it get any bigger? The universe is still moving through time right, so it has not reached an infinite age yet. thank you.

The expanding Membrane model proposed in this "ALMA" thread is not isotropic but same-timed or " isotemporal". All the matter is thought of to have traveled a similar distance through time (corrected for relativity) and therefore be confined to the expanding sphere.
​

 

[river]

From the "Isotropic Universe" thread:
Quotes by Not Einstein↑
"By whom?"


below a partial quote from New Scientist July 12 2017 " 5 things physicists hate "

"Infinity
Mathematicians are pretty convinced that infinity exists. In fact, there’s not just one infinity, but an infinite number of infinities of varying sizes. And there’s nothing mathematicians like better than to invent new levels of infinity to plug logical holes in their subject. For physicists, though, infinity is a pain in the proverbial. Infinities are unruly quantities that tend to blow up any theory they appear in.--"

stop expansion:
↑

Not. Einstein. : "Why would it?"
The Hilbert paradox notwithstanding, once an entity has reached infinite size, how could it get any bigger? The universe is still moving through time right, so it has not reached an infinite age yet. thank you.

The expanding Membrane model proposed in this "ALMA" thread is not isotropic but same-timed or " isotemporal". All the matter is thought of to have traveled a similar distance through time (corrected for relativity) and therefore be confined to the expanding sphere.
​

Where do you get a sphere , shape .

To me the Universe is amorphous .

Just thinking

 

[nebel]

Where do you get a sphere , shape .

To me the Universe is amorphous .

indeed it looks that way to us, as we look in all directions of space, as the Earth turns. Space is filled with stuff, witness the latest pictures , close and far, of the eclipse, the Colosseum, Moon, Mars. Looking with better glasses that see radio waves, we appear to see an end to the stretch, the light, a limiting radius, in all directions. Taking this idea, suppose we would look back in time only, not space, -then we would have a situation as sketched in post # 681, page #35:
ALL the mass of the universe has travelled through time in an equal amount in all direction, and as a model would be confined in a moment in time in an expanding sphere (allowing for relativistic effects) of zero thickness. The centre of that sphere is the point in time , of the BB, that was located there ~13.8 billion years ago.
Looking back in time for flatlanders would be not down the radius, but along that sphere, a panoramic view in two dimensions,-- it is just a model after all --, deprived of one spatial dimension, gaining a time perspective instead. It is a global view. view of a globe.
glad you asked, ready to elaborate more.

 

[river]

indeed it looks that way to us, as we look in all directions of space, as the Earth turns. it is filled with stuff, witness the latest pictures close and far of the eclipse, the Colosseum, Moon, Mars. Looking with better glasses that see radio waves, we appear to see an end to the stretch, the light, a radius, in all directions. Taking this idea, suppose we would look back in time only, not space, -then we would have a situation as sketched in post # 681, page #35:
ALL the mass of the universe has travelled through time in an equal amount in all direction, and as a model would be confined in a moment in time in an expanding sphere (allowing for relativistic effects) of zero thickness. The centre of that sphere is the point in time , of the BB, that was located there ~13.8 billion years ago.
Looking back in time for flatlanders would be not down along the radius, but along that sphere, a panoramic view in two dimensions, it is just a model after all, deprived of one spatial dimension, gaining a time perspective instead.
glad you asked, ready to elaborate more.

A sphere is three dimensional , not two .

You can't replace a spatial with a time dimension .

Why ?

Because time has no dimension reality other than in mathematics .

 

[nebel]

Located where , exactly ?

At a point in the infinite time dimension that long ago. A recent BBC article on "TIME travel machines" mentioned "block time" (Einstein derived) . Since only energy, no mass existed prior to that Big Beginning point in time, there was yet no spacetime, nor masstime, -- only timespace, aka energytime.
In our coordinate presentations of velocities, Time is always presented at right angles to space. so: think of that beginning point as being the locality where all the beings on that membrane draw their time axis to. That point is empty now, we all have moved on through time.

 

[river]

At a point in the infinite time dimension that long ago. A recent BBC article on "TIME travel machines" mentioned "block time" (Einstein derived) . Since only energy, no mass existed prior to that Big Beginning point in time, there was yet no spacetime, nor masstime, -- only timespace, aka energytime.
In our coordinate presentations of velocities, Time is always presented at right angles to space. so: think of that beginning point as intersecting where all the beings on that membrane draw their time axis to. That point is empty now, we all have moved on through time.

Old ideas , leads to old thinking .

Time has no efficacy on any - thing , ever . For infinity .

 

[nebel]

Time has no efficacy on any - thing , ever . For infinity .

Of course, it is only the playing field that is needed for anythink, or anything to happen. If you have no time, you hav'nt even got a chance. You and I would not be here if our parents had not had, and taken time. time is fundamnetal

Old ideas , leads to old thinking

don't knock old. age is the best thing that can happen to you. Even Newton stood on shoulders of [old, prior]giants.