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

    Messages:
    1,986
    False. Those current trends include "time" with "nothing", so not even time (as we know it) existed.

    How can the membrane move through both simultaneously? If the movement of the membrane is the passage of time, how can the movement of the membrane also be the passage through nothingsic? (Unless nothingsic and time are the same thing?)

    Did you accidentally quote the wrong part of my post? I'm asking because you haven't answered the question I asked in it.

    (Nor does it predict it.)

    What is "Hyper expansion"?

    In that case, let's move over to some experimental data:
    "Moreover, the fluctuations are coherent on angular scales that are larger than the apparent cosmological horizon at recombination. Either such coherence is acausally fine-tuned, or cosmic inflation occurred."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

    Please explain how this feature of the CMB, that is currently being attributed to inflation, occurs using your model.

    So you are simply asserting the truth of your model, instead of using experimental data? If that's the case, there is no use arguing with you, because you literally just admitted that you cannot accept that there might even be a possibility that your model is wrong. Just a note of warning: such behavior may be interpreted as "preaching" on this forum, which is not allowed.

    This is obviously nonsense, as time may be eternal (we don't know), and the theory of general relativity allows for that without issues. Also, it's not me claiming this, but the relevant scientists and experts in the field. (Even though my nickname may suggest it, I'm actually not Einstein.)pun intended
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    to understand that statement, you have to understand the origin and usage the term nothing sic. It refers to the usage that Sean Carroll made in his book, " From Eternity to here" a universe from nothing. He takes the position, that there is not, never has been nothing, void of anything, but there is an eternal nothingsic that contains a kind of energy, kind of virtual particles, activity popping in and out of existence, based on the Feinman diagrams, a favoured picture of Hawking too.-- time is more straight forward.
    A universe from nothing refers to the origin, that happened at a point in infinite time, that was made possible by the existence of nothingsic, as these physicists see it.
    A universe from nothing, happening later in infinite time, and expanding through it a good read. thank you.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    I want to come back to the apparent contradiction, that there was never gravity inside the empty, used time cavity of the expanding membrane, yet there was gravity acting between the matter inside the membrane acting horizontally, if that can be visualised in a zero thickness membrane.
    In a real life hollow ball, the only gravity force would be projecting to the outside, so it is reasonable to propose, that the same is the case in the model so, interestingly,
    Your objection , that there was gravity in the cavity, because the membrane passed through it*** in its forward travel through time, confirms the feature of the ESM model, that gravity must project outwardly toward the future time. now, if there indeed is nothingsic existing alongside time, and always has, your objection confirms the possibility that the motion of space into the future is in part fueled by the energy, virtual particles in the nothingsic that the gravity acts on.
    There was gravity in the past, because it was projected into the future. like all messages are projected in the future that we agreed on. gravitons anyone?
    *** and of course still does.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    No, this is not reasonable. One is a physical object, a bunch of atom. The other is a mental construct. It is extremely unreasonable to apply a force which is known to only operate on physical objects (gravity) to mental constructs.

    No, gravity does not "project outwardly" in my argumentation; it doesn't exclude the possibility, but it certainly doesn't confirm it either. And indeed, it's my position that only the gravity present in the membrane has any possible influence on other things inside that membrane. What gravity at r=10 is doing is irrelevant for an object at r=20; only gravity at r=20 can possibly have any effect.

    Space itself cannot meaningfully move when spacetime is around, unless you are introducing a second, spacetime-independent time dimension.

    This does not follow from my objection; I think you have completely misunderstood it. Also, virtual particles need space to exist in.

    This statement is in contradiction with your opening sentence. Here you agree with me that there is gravity inside the sphere.

    I'm not sure we agreed on that? Please point out my previous agreement with that statement.

    Gravitons are hypothetical particles that have not been shown to exist.
     
  8. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    how does Hawking radiation function then?
     
  9. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    NE: like it or not, the whole mass of the universe is thought to reside in that membrane, just as it thought to have the resided in the point in time of the BB
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
  10. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
  11. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    NE: time, the 1st dimension as such, in the model is by nature void of mass objects, their equivalent but of course entities (even though they might be dark, and virtual, and we can not see them) can exist in time, just as we do. and we travel. move through time forward. Once we have moved on, that time is empty again. An interesting supposition theoretically is, that mass, energy, might leave wrinkles in time, waves, standing waves (that later). but what would forbid another object occupy a point or line in time that is vacant again? Remember, we exist only in the now, the membrane moving along. nothing sic exists in the past, the wake so to speak. even the meter bar of Paris is not there. The only way we know about the past is by fossils. reflected light is such kind of a fossil. we receive it from the pst right?
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
  12. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    Nebel in previous post::Any supposed new entity there would not be part of our normal universe, which is exclusively defined to the membrane.

    NEin previous post: :So those new entities can simply be thrown out based on Occam's Razor, because they literally cannot have any effect on our universe. You literally cannot prove their existence. Then why postulate them? They are wholly unnecessary, pure speculation, and unscientific.

    Nebel: NE: when I postulate, it is usually to illustrate a point. Assume, that such entities are dark energy, virtual particles, as they are mentioned in the relevant literature. if they existed in time, before, around the BB point. can they be thought of to be present still, too, in the infinite time outside the membrane? being absorbed into the membrane as it is waved through? fuelling with that extra energy the accelerated expansion?
    Becoming a significant factor now, that the size of the membrane has reached a radius of 13.8 lys? explaining the switch, at one point, from declining expansion geometric (from the impetus of the initial energy) expansion to accelerated expansion, fuelled by the newly acquired, appropriated nothingsic?
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
  13. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    what the ESM model indicates is, that if conditions in the infinite time before and around the BB affected the nascent universe/membrane, why would they not now, as it still expands through that same time? the accelerating and the origin of the required additional energy (that is acquired through expansion) might provide the answer.
     
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Usually it's explain as a virtual particle pair spontaneously being created near the event horizon, with one particle falling in and the other escaping. Gravitons are not involved at all.

    For more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#1976_Page_numerical_analysis Notice how gravitons are mentioned, but in that same list neutrino's and photons are also mentioned as emission candidates. So without gravitons, Hawking radiation still works just fine.

    You have missed my point. Gravity only operates on physical objects, but the membrane isn't a physical sphere. The shell theorem thus does not apply.

    No, it affects spacetime. The entire idea of the theory of relativity is that you cannot decouple the two.

    This is your assertion; you haven't given any evidence to suggest that time is an all pervasive medium.

    Please read my post again: I'm not saying it isn't, I'm only saying my argumentation is neither for or against it.

    No, this is a false generalization. Electromagnetics don't disappear inside a sphere. The mass of a physical spherical shell does not create a gravitational force inside it. You are left out the "physical" and the "gravitational" bits.

    Sure, but since Newton was only talking about physical spheres with masses, and gravitational forces, it doesn't apply to the membrane of your model.

    No, humans need space to exist.

    No, we still occupy that time. It's our past, and it's frozen.

    What do you think you'd find if you were able to travel back in time? Go back five minutes. Would you expect to find the world as it was five minutes ago, or a completely empty realm? Due to the way time works, physics predicts you'd find the universe as it was five minutes ago. You are contradicting this; that is not how time works.

    Are you re-defining time as well now?

    How can time "wrinkle"? What does that even mean? How can there be waves in time? What does that even mean? This appears to be word-salad.

    Nothing. Except that the point isn't vacant. Let me demonstrate:
    Let's take an object, and call it object A. It occupies position x at time t. Now, is position x at time t occupied? Yes, object A is there.
    From some future time t+1, travel back to time t. Is position x at time t occupied? Yes, object A is there.

    Notice that you are claiming that at time t, position x is both occupied and not occupied. How do you resolve this conflict?

    Of course the only information we can gather from the past is if things carry that information from the past to us; how else would one gain such knowledge? I however don't understand what point you are trying to make here?

    As I've mentioned multiple times before, virtual particles cannot exist without space, and that probably goes for dark energy as well.

    Please give a mechanism how an object that exists only in time can enter spacetime. Take particular note that this may cause violations of causality in that spacetime continuum.

    No, that's the radius of the visible universe, which has no bearing on the size of the entire universe (well, it sets a lower bound).

    Please give a calculation that demonstrates that the changes in the expansion rate are compatible with this "hovering up of energy" idea.

    You still haven't given any underlying mechanism or explanation how this might work; all you've done is made assertions about particular features of the universe your model might be able to explain. You have given zero evidence. You have re-defined almost every term involved because it otherwise wouldn't fit your model. Your model is in contradiction with both theories of relativity. Your model is less applicable than BB theory.

    You cannot prevent Occam's Razor from destroying large parts of your model. You have stopped responding to large parts of my posts, ignoring critical issues that I've pointed out with your model. You can't even admit the possibility that your model may be wrong.

    I'll refrain from drawing any conclusions from that train of thought.

    Please give a calculation that demonstrates that the changes in the expansion rate are compatible with this "hovering up of energy" idea.
     
  15. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    Surely the viewers that produced the 5000+ hit number are grateful to the objectors (not naysayers) for having helped to define the the list falsifiable predictions about the evolving ESM model:
    1) there never can be such a universe, conforming to the ESM model, that did not come from a nothingsic that always existed.
    2) the universe did not have purely geometrically explained expansion rate near the beginning that is already greater by at least 10 to the 15 power than it is today.
    3) the universe could never have an accelerated expansion rate unless more energy resides in the nothing of the future time that it expands into.
    4) add yur own predictions based on objections possible. please.
     
  16. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    exactly, the cited authors suggest, that such particle pairs also existed in the pre-BB condition, the white hole, all this happening in time, because their appearance exit, can not happen without acceleration, which is time to the second power.
     
  17. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    I'll leave that to the experts, The resident "energy"outside is very low, but the membrane's outer surface is huge' some even beyond our 'C" determined horizon. This is conquered energy, put to use. not just hovered over, like a huey in 'nam.
     
  18. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    how so? because?
    both the BB and relativistic effects are prominetaly mentioned.
    Yes, the model is geometric, basic and primitive, but let the ramifications lead it where it must.
    your objections are not refutations, but indicators where this leads, as I mentioned. If all that ESM leads to is a cul de sac, - great. some of the most expensive properties are on dead end streets.
     
  19. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    gauss cage? sorry, Faraday cage? There is a difference between a projected field, radiation, and a negative pulling like gravity, the graviton supposition notwithstanding. repeat:
    There is no gravity acting in a cavity of a perfect sphere, theoretically or in an imagined reality.
    after all, the membrane contains all the mass of the universe, projecting enough gravity not to be trifled with, tangentially (which is outwardly, never toward the past), into the field of the time realm.
    If I do not respond to all objections, it is not out of impoliteness. am just too slow.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Please point out exactly where you got that idea from, because I can't find that mentioned there.

    Acceleration is not "time to the second power". Acceleration is the second derivative with respect to time of (spatial) position.

    So once again, you have no evidence or (mathematical) derivation to support your claim. You merely assert that things will work out (which you thus don't actually know), and leave all the actual work for others.

    (I might have misspelled it. I meant hoovering, like a vacuum cleaner.)

    I have already explained this earlier. For example, your ideas about how time works are in contradiction with both theories of relativity, and your model cannot describe a big crunch universe.

    False. Because you redefine the terms, they are not the same. The time you are talking about is not same time as meant in the theory of relativity.

    How can you say what your model leads to, if there are no calculations to be performed? You just admitted you can't even show that the rate at which energy is "conquered" by the membrane can be compatible with what we see in our universe!

    It currently seems to be leading to a rejections of both theories of relativity. Not because the model is more accurate (because you can't produce any quantitative predictions), but because it's simply incompatible with them.

    Are all sphere Faraday cages then? If I crumple up paper into a ball, does it suddenly become metal?

    Gravity doesn't pull negatively?

    Physical sphere. A sphere made out of matter (or energy, if you're doing GR).

    Yes, but that still doesn't mean the shell theorem applies. For example, the shell theorem is derived by integrating over all spatial angles. Your model doesn't have spatial angles inside the membrane (because there is no space). The shell theorem therefore cannot be derived for your membrane; it is not applicable. The membrane isn't a sphere in space; it's a sphere of spacetime. That is not a physical sphere.

    How can gravity propagate without space?

    No problem.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
  21. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    Of course, a crunch universe would be would be one where the expansion would have reversed into a contraction, but a Changing membrane model would not describe our universe, but would still work.give some insights. example:
    The membrane would now forward to a center, point in time where the remaining energy of the universe would disperse into the endless time, nothingsic. The time of such a model/universe would be limited to the interior of the membrane. there would be no gravity though, to be hoovering or sucking the membrane along, because in the cave, such forces would balance each other out. If that phase of the membrane model would be the inward movement of an expanding sphere, the membrane would not be visiting past events, because on the outward phase no trace of the membranes activity would be left, unless there are wrinkles in time, the nothing.
     
  22. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    gravity is a warping of spacetime, If you remove 3 dimensions, you are left with the warping of time and the nothing sic. just like painting the 6 sides of a 3 dimensional cube, upon removal of 5 sides (the 1 D of heights, would still leave you with on a 2D painted side, the base. represented by time. That is why the exploration of the inert past surface of the membrane compared to the energetic outer future -facing surface is so fascinating. any activity is going off in a tangent while staying inside the outward moving membrane.
     
  23. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    A model is a simplified arrangement to see what would happen --If -- in reality ("wirklichkeit" AEspeak-- so and so happened. Working it through, we have deducted I space dimension to accentuate the 4st, time, which takes takes the missing one's place. place. In the membrane , we have not removed the mass, so we have internal gravity, we have not removed the dimensions that that define its spherical surface, its size, so the cancellation of gravity of the small near masses and the larger far masses applies. no gravity from the center to the walls of the inner surface. we can extrapolate from the model to reality, and should. or?
    Yes , objections, and their rebuttal are other's work, but help to put flesh on the skeleton.
     

Share This Page