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

Birch, I will answer your questions based on what the Expanding Sphere Membrane model would tell us. It is a geometric concept, so can not directly deal with your questions that deal with feelings, and the mind.
Yes, the past would be unknown, if we did not have memories, memorials. We will be unknown if somehow we would not be remembered. A scary thought, but that what the model tells us. unless some trace of our activities is left of us, we will not remain part of the the universe as it moves through time into the future. The good news is, that everything that happens changes the universe, so our impression y is there . so make it a good one.
The past is gone. the universe has left its past position in time, it's past shape and size. The fact that some things are very durable, does not mean they still exist in the past. it just means they have passed into the now with us, are even likely to go many future nows, and I won't. May gold crowns and stainless steel hip will, though.
The past is really really passe'
Now, if I now think about the gold and the stainless steel, does that mean they are projected into the future? just because they are durable enough to be there? The model tells us: no !, the universe, or membrane, has not moved through time yet to that future size and position. Of course our mind makes an image of the future, like allowing us to weave through the traffic ahead, and getting there at the same time as everybody else, on average.
The universe is not in the future yet, it not in good enough shape, yet, too small.
now, you can think about it now, but have to wait and see. really.
Because the now is so short, and the older I get, there are going to be fewer and fewer nows left, better think: now, what is best to do now.
Looking back at your past, like in a mirror you want to read: now I , I won. tm just thought of that right now.and:
but only if you are in the [k]now. tm
there was timespace, now is spacetime,

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This, not being a picture of the expanding sphere membrane, but begging the question:
"what would it be like to be at the edge of the universe's model?. looking out into the future, but really back toward the BB?
Where is the outer surface of the membrane?
Well, the surface is you! (90 degrees from where the images come from is out toward future time, really timespace.
Since all messages come from the past, to others, you would be in the past, not as far as the BB, but the smaller universe past. at the edge of the universe, heading headlong into future time, really timespace.
PS: The scary part to be at the surface of the universe, farthest away from the BB, is not to be there, but to be left behind as the home moves on, upward into the future, outwardly into timespace, but moving on without you/me,--- also called death.
If puzzled: looking along the membrane, is looking at the past, a smaller universe, smallest at the BB. But time, timespace is at a right angle to you, down in the radial direction. In the model membrane, Panning a panoramic view , in 360 degrees is equivalent to taking a total fisheye camera picture, both North and Southern hemispheres. why? because we have taken one dimension out of the 3, to have zero thickness membrane model. . making you a flatlander.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems to me that we ony look at the BB when we want to look back in time and observe something that was before "now". But from "now" we cannot see the future either (we can anticipate).

The strange thing is that what is "now" in relationship to our own mental perception of being a continuous self, every other thing we observe as "now" occurred before we became aware of it and existed in our past.

Thus all living things are living in a future spacetime frame than what we can observe fleetingly.

A little humor:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

George Carlin was good . Miss that comedy , intelligent .

 

yes, we have the illusion, that we are looking into the future, like looking through the windshield of our cars, anticipating the road ahead. bu: All we see even feel, the foot on the gas, are messages from the past. The expanding Sphere deals with this, because in it the radiation goes out in a spiral path inside the membrane into a greater, future position. As that message is seen, it came from a smaller size membrane in the past. The Only thing we can see is in the now, the messages that were send to us earlier, from smaller membranes in spacetime. So,
If we could have a different abstract membrane in timespace containing only our "now " perception, it would probably look like a pear, with the BB at the end of stem, and the dried blossom husks at our now. To get that whole picture, it would have to be a panorama, looking a full 360 degrees into the membrane, our toe on the gas being not too far away. lots of near past images, sprse from the smaller radii past. That pear is only in the back of our brains, not a real membrane like the universe, membrane though.
No, respectfully, In the model of reality, there is no picture in the future , no spacetime frame yet. Our mental picture is only geared for the future, the membrane has not arrived at that size yet, but future timespace frames can be constructed as a abstract, mathematically too, see the eclipse calculations, post 354 page 18.
W4U, you are talking in your post about time as a human invention (all the wealth I have left comes from an invention, nothing wrong with inventions), as a construct in our brain. T
The ESM model is not about perception, but attempts to visualise workings of the the cosmos, apart from our time perception by deducting one of those pesky dimension, and substituting time for it. thank you.

 

Miss that comedy too, sadly, because I am too old to be able to follow, even clearly hear all the words anymore.
Here is an interesting thought based on my hearing: what would the Expanding universe look like as a model, if our main perception, and the universal "speed limit" was not based on light, "c" but sound?
We used to have a house near the Cape Canaveral Space center, and watched the shuttle take offs from the front yard. EErie, to see the steam billow up, the body rising in silence, and then, a few seconds later the blast arriving, or, at the Mars missions, --having your teeths shaken. .
The difference in sizes of the membrane through time would be much more pronounced based on sound than on electromagnetic waves.

 

Obviously I did not make myself clear. We can only see the past, we can only experience now which is in the future of the observable past and from past experience we can approximate the future.
We have receptors to record that which has happened just moments before we react in the future, always.

 

I think we are not contradicting each other at all on this.
The future of an observable past, (any true future, not our ideas about it), are only constructs in our brains. We, even dogs are very good at predicting the future of events that we see developing from the past, I watch them catch balls in the air in the park I live on, every day. On a grandiose level, we predict eclipses.
In the model, the expanding sphere, is really different, has changed from the past situation-- during the now --to the future. literally moved through time. We like those fluid timelines. Without that trick of our nervous system life would be shorter, restricted to the zero length now.
A 100 year (hopefully) long succession of zero length. no length at all, and looking back that is exactly what it feel like I kid you not, ask any senior like me. Thanks for the insight why the past feels so very short.

yes, well said.

PS: I have to repeat that for emphasis: The past of our lives seems have gone in, (reduced to) an instant, because they were, all the zero lengths nows added up, even after 100 years , add up still to be no length at all. Made worse of course by aging bains' memory loss.

About the shuttle launch, visual versus auditory experience. We probably never saw the steam from the house,(only from higher vantage points) sorry, false memories, but I still have a picture of it rising, with my young son in the driveway.

 

[QUOTE="Write4U, post: 3497776, member: 261885"
In your scenario of a separate dimension of time, i.e. "something", how would you measure the duration of time?[/QUOTE]
thank you for inviting clarification.
In the movement of the universe through time , one would assume that time exists, and not to put a limit on it, one could call it infinite, eternal.
Thinking that through, the term timespace emerged, time that just is everywhere, without having directional dimension like our 3D situation.
How would you measure distance in timespace with no directions, no arrow , before the BB?
why would you need to? but
how do we measure size in our 3 spatial dimensions? by comparing known lengths, to the standard meter in Paris fe. . Is there standard foot somewhere?
timespace has no direction, unlike 3D space, not even one. It is free to be taken up, by the any taker, like in the expanding membrane of the model.fe. Then
Time, at right angle to space displacement, is measured in already established time intervals. measuring timespace, in whatever direction, one second at a time. Radially in the model.

 

write4U said: Infinity has no center

If the universe might be infinite, but has a beginning at the BB, would that not be an infinity with a beginning? from that it can be deduced, that there always has been an infinity, not just starting at the BB.
always, like all the time = infinitely.
Time, or timespace did not start at the Big Bang, whether the universe is infinite already, or expanding like a membrane in the model toward infinity .

 

Seattle you put your finger on it, but it is not only confusion, but you formulated the right question to be answered which led to the Expanding Sphere Membrane model.
If the photons from that merger followed the world timeline, we would see all the younger ones, coming off them during the billion years since then also on the same image. But we don't. The never ones, from nearer in time, would already have passed us , having a shorter distance to travel.
If the are a;ready gone, where are they now?, have they left the universe, the membrane? obviously not, so they must keep moving toward a future interception.
The genius of Alma search is to focus on the older Photons that have been stretched most, as the Universe, (or membrane) expanded. So it would be a question of sharp focus, blurring out the irrelevant, newer foreground nearer to us.

To recapitulate the Expanding Sphere Membrane's role in this: Time is infinite. But at one point in timespace, the BB started, then, from there, the universe expanded in the model form of an ever increasing membrane, moving through time in a radial direction. The "arrows of time" if any, would point in all directions, not just one. The future is outside the outer surface of the membrane, empty, infinite like the past inside the membrane. . The universe is moving into the future through time.

There is only one membrane, the old galaxies membrane position is gone, there is no galaxies there any more, all we see is the photons. If we focus much further out to that spot, we would see only the Background radiation. hiding the BB.

 

This early exchange points to the geometry Horizon Problem in the Expanding Sphere Membrane model of the universe. In it, the membrane is seen to be expanding through time in a radial direction, measuring out the 13.8 billion years that way, accounting for an 27.6 diameter today. But looking along, inside the membrane circumference, ( our only way to see in the model), that radial movement through time is stretched out to ~ 87 billion light years in circumference of accumulated info that we are looking at, perhaps ~40 ly, before we see the same event again, looking 180 deg. in the opposite direction. The CMB permeating the whole membrane of course.
Yet, we see, according to data, only 13.8 billion years into the past, of a 40, or 90 billion years of stretched information coming at us.
Consider though, that these light messages, photons come into our sensors in a spiral path reaching almost all the way to the BB, that in length, should not take up more than 1/6st of the size of the universe today.
Thus, according to the model, only ~26 of the ~90 billion light years are visible to us today, more than 2/3 of the universe out there is beyond our Horizon, because of expansion through time, without even mentioning inflation, just geometry.
Horizon paradox, seeing only 13.8 billion light years out of 90 billions out there now, in the now membrane.

 

A few quotes from the developing discussion what for me gelled as the infinite time, Expanding Membrane model.
The point of view applicable here would be in timespace, not in spacetime, Physically impossible, but x time units out, before the point of the BB. To fit the perspective, ~ 90 billion years before. the wrong model though I prefer to envision the Expanding Sphere rather than the longer and longer bell.
timespace, the non- directional infinite domain outside and before our universe.

PS: (not BS) The model would allow to describe two movements through time.1) Radially, purely in timespace. and 2), inside the membrane in spacetime, , through expansion and proper movement, circumferentially orientated to the BB point. Wished I could draw and link it. but get the point?
2 of many arrow of time directions possible in timespace.

 

Summary:
and it is expanding from the BB point in time. so, it must be expanding into time. time must be included in that permittive condition.
A condition can not exist without having time to exist in. so, time has to be fundamental,
Since the universe is not a line, with time being an arrow, but expanded in all three dimensions, more or less evenly, it could be modeled as a sphere, moving outwardly through time, a membrane picturing the "now" moment in time.
Time must have existed before the BB, must also already exist in the future, into which the universe expands. the same condition that existed before there was no universe.
we might call that timespace.
refutations please.

 

Monologue continuing.
We were talking about the repudiated bell shaped model, of post#3 and #362. where the universe goes off to one side. unlikely
That is where my computer ignorance , -not being able to find an Expanding Sphere Membrane picture to post, - is forcing you to make a good mental picture of the expanding sphere membrane. The alleged 5 st dimension is of course required for an intrepid timespace traveler that has left the universe, traveled into the time domain of the future, she is poised on the nothingsic it contains.
The accelerating expansion of the membrane can be construed to be a argument in favour of the timespace conjecture. because:
If in the current universe, the space that is appearing between the mass conglomerations is anything like the timespace that the universe came from, and is still outside the universe, then
timespace, as it is, must contain that energy [darkly] that feeds the acceleration, and fed the Big Beginniang tm. so:

Picture for yourself the expanding membrane gobbling up, or incorporating more timespace as it advances into the future, that new space then appearing as the energizing void between the superclusters. Like a looting army financing bigger campaigns from the wealth that the conquest yieded.
The model vindicated by current observations, dark energy explained (at least the origin aspect). or?
timespace allowing an expanding membrane model universe.
refutation please. (silence is not golden, or is it? , then, thanks for the gold. ).

 

Alternate wordings:
As the universe advances into timespace, it kind of digests it, absorbs the time plus the nothingsic it contains for the work of expansion, and
deposits the space between the masses.
make that more gold or not.
PS: that would mean there is actually more energy still in the future, because the void between masses has content. it is not zere content that is deposited there during expansion.

 

No, permittiveness is fundamental. Time is a result of permssion to continue existence.

Of course, a membrane is measurable in several ways, one of them is the time of its existence, in addition to its geometric configuration.

Time does not exist independent of a secondary measurable condition. Time itself cannot be measured in any way.

 

thank you for answering. This could be a chicken and egg question (which is actually solved). but if permittiveness is a condition, conditional on having time to exist in, could we call them co-eternal, co infinite, co-fundamental?

good observation, I tried to tackle the geometric problem in the Horizon comment post 372. The time since the Big Beginang would be the radius. Looking along inside the curved plane, the circumferencial view, limited by the reach of light, "c" coming from the past emitters in the membrane, but having only indirectly a radial vector component spiral path from the smaller size membrane universe, that is gone into history.

If Time is indefinite, it is indeed unmeasurable, but once you have any time lapse layd out, you could extrapolate from there. Think in terms of timespace containing nothing[sic] until spacetime came along.
I am tempted to commision a crude expanding sphere, and transfer to a different heading, title, because the "merging galaxies" do not do justice to the scope of the discussion, do not attract more interest. imho. thanx

 

[ This would show the progression through time and the membrane of a an object in proper motion. or the advancement of a photon emitted.

 

sorry, double post
My try to use advanced computer copy and paste. That is why old geezers like me avoid the click, the universe, not just the membrane might self destruct.