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

Theta would be the universe/ cum membrane at half size, ~ 7 billion years ago (not considering inflation.
see image below post #383

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Only if you consider nothing to be something that has an existence.

I can't comment on that.

Why would "nothingness" be timespace? IMO, my definition of a permittive condition, does not need time.
And how would you interpret "a time lapse layd out"? The existence of measurable change, no?

If it pleases you, but my viewpoint won't change. IMO, time is human construct to measure duration of existence of something, not nothing and only useful for human purposes. The universe has no need for time, it functions by mathematical rules which are permittive or not permittive of change. Time is a by-product, emerging along with duration of something extant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Theta would be the universe halfway through time, hardly in absolute size, with the membrane surface increasing in the second power.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your objections, based on that viewpoint, almost cast in stone, are appreciated, but obviously almost 8000 views were not just your's. and
"old theories do not get abandoned until their originators die" not wishing that on you personally. just remarking in general.

When I quote "nothing [sic]" I do not mean nothing in the absolute philosophical sense, but as used in Physics by the likes of Prof. Krauss, the void having virtual particles, [dark] energy." there is no such thing as nothing, from "A universe from nothing" . For even a concept, a potential to exist, it has to have time to be in. preferably infinite time. timespace.
Time layout? take the theta/ radius measurements projected out into timespace.

yes, there always was nothing. it existed a long time . see Krauss et al. thank you, appreciated.

 

For how long? How about a quantum instant?

p.s. I saw the Krauss debate. In it he cited an empty lot which might well contain a building in the near future. Of course he ignored that an empty lot is already something and not nothing.
True, the building wasn't there yet, but I found that a weak argument if trying to prove that nothing can result in something, without the interference of a third party.

And I'm sure you do not believe in an extant sentient creator when something appears from nothing.

 

Whenever I hear quantum, like in quantity, smallest, like in Planck length in time[space] I have to respectfully bow out.
I am thinking here in the other end of the spectrum, of infinity. kicking the ball as far as it could go, infinity, no questions asked.
Time, as all encompassing dimension, timespace is truly fundamental. Even nothing, the void can not exist without it. Whether the energy needed to start the BeginBang , existed in zero sum form for infinite time, is another question . Another topic, "to be or not to be" fundamentally energetic. As I pointed out, the accelerating universe/ membrane, the void with energy are strong arguments for the existence of both infinite time and nothing[sic] content coming into play now.

I enjoyed creating. My grandfather was a recognized sculptor whose works, zirka 1900, are now under historic Monument protection in our home town. I carry those genes, have a few patents to prove the point. But we are discussing the workshop here, not whether there is a resident sculptor, or what kind, or if nature's setup is possibly so good, that everything now, creates itself, including universes.
Model making is fun and easy, including Expanding Spherical Membranes, mobiles breathing in.
A. Einstein, no less , wondered :
Did " Der Alte" the ancient eternal one, have any choice in making the laws that govern nature?. To have predecessors is the easy way out.

 

I stand fast on my view that an abstract Permittive condition includes the permittiveness for Time to occur by any means. Time is connected to the geometry of space, not to the chronology of time. It is a completely arbitrary and abstract term for duration of something. It is relativistic variable result of change.

And it is a handy tool.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes agreed, it works great in our setting, which could be just oue corner of a possibly bigger workshop. I was not questioning at all the validity of all you believe and say, and work with, but
a wider view might open other vistas.
timespace beyond our horizon. in all directions. thank you.
My intent is not to topple anyone's conviction.
*Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response leading to thoughts of the noblest kind* W4U
let us be kind. reply in kind, kinder-like.

 

I compliment you for your grace. I want to qualify that my arguments are not from authority, but the concepts of "infinity" and "singularity" are difficult for me to reconcile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_(philosophy)

Does this clarify my concept of a Timeless Permittive Condition?

 

I was clearly referring to an infinity of space, not time. Yes, an infinity of space can have a beginning in time, but it cannot have a center of space.

(Note that in standard BB theory, space can be both infinite and expanding simultaneously.)

 

thank you, I had a simple idea of tnfinite time and after reading the links, I have to make choices, which means I am working to clear what important but is not relevant.
When I thought of infinity, I always thought about time, but in terms of space that is not emerging, but in actuality, perhaps as a wall the recedes into the fat distance, the scattered blue rather stretched red. not never ending, the view never coming to the zero point in the distance. always of the same heights. Kremlin forever, while playing the Russian national anthem. time as a structure, so when timespace came to me that what the non directional infinite time dimension would look like. It is not an infinite time that arises from realized possibilities. It does not anything to exist.
with some many great thinkers having concepts of infinite time associated with it, I rest.
For the Expanding Sphere Model to work, we need only a chunk of~ 30 billion years across to keep going for a while, but that opens the immediate question of having to create time on the run to keep ahead of the expansion, Nice to think we always timea head, obviously sooner or later we personally will run out of time to move into. but hope is eternal.

 

That is comforting, since timespace would cover that concept, infinite time that is not constraint by space directions.
Infinite space by itself can of course have no center, but an expanding Sphere in it could. so, do you propose there was infinite space before the BeginBang? or did spacetime started to stretch out into infinity from that point on? a potential infinite space or a pre-existing urspace?

I do not want to misunderstand, are we seeing 3 dimensions appear at the BB, (also in the ESM model) and from then on stretching into infinity, even outside the universe membrane? or is there a fundamental external structure a kind of Meta/ Urspace? infinitely in scope and duration?
thank you, elaboration appreciated, to reconcile with ESM mode.

 

As I've said many many many many many times before now: we don't know what happened in the few moments after the big bang, let alone what happened before them. I'm not proposing anything of the sort.

Please explain how a finite space can stretch out into infinity in finite time, without weirdness such as parts stretching out infinitely but others not, and without matter/energy being diluted into oblivion?

Oh, it's certainly a possibility that spacetime existed before the big bang. We simply don't know.

Wrong. In so much as we see dimensions appear at the BB, it's all four of them, not just the three spatial ones.

Since there is no membrane in standard BB theory, I don't know what you are talking about.

That has nothing to do with what you quoted.

Let me rephrase what I said: let's assume that space in infinite in size. That means that any coordinate (x, y, z) you can come up with (where x, y, z are real numbers) is a unique, valid spatial position. If I then stretch the entire universe (for example, make the distances between any two points twice as large), the universe is still infinite, but space has expanded. Position (x, y, z) moved to (2 * x, 2 * y, 2 * z), but every coordinate (2 * x, 2 * y, 2 * z) can be relabeled to (x', y', z'). Thus we once again has that every position (x', y', z') is a unique, valid spatial position, but now all distances have doubled. In other words: space was infinite and still is, while it has expanded.

 

I was asking you. because that is what i thought could possibly result from your comment.
When did it become infinite, at the big bang? super inflation?

I understand that, or, you could chop any portion of space into infinite segments. infinitesimals within infinity. but: "space was infinite and still is?

When was space infinite, at the BB? before? after? did infinite space have a beginning in time? when mainstream time began, at the BB too?
In the ESM model it is quite clear: time is fundamental, infinite timespace. The universe started at one point in eternal time, and 3D space started then, to expand into timespace, now a 13.8 billion radius model membrane, extending space with it as it expands. No space outside the universe, yet. timespace only. just like before the BB.
If that conflicts with mainstream views, it is a stand alone model after all , taking a larger view. leaving the inside workings of the universe to those versed in it.

 

If that is so, then we agree, if time existed, and even space (spacetime) possibly, before the BB, then the content of it like us, are moving through spacetime ever since The beginning at the BB. Moving . particularly through time. which counts for us, that are counting our days left to travel.

Question: do you, in your mainstream view of the universe , separate, distinguish the empty abstract dimensions () from the content, energy and mass? because if your dimensions are eternal, is it the content that is temporal?

 

I don't see how you came to that conclusion; I never meant to say anything like that.

I could be wrong, but for the reasons I gave, I think if it's infinite now, it always was infinite. Otherwise nature would just be a little too weird for my taste.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do you mean an infinite amount of segments, segments of infinite size, or both?

I'm not sure you can properly define infinitesimals without infinity, and I don't understand what you mean by it in this context.

Possibly; we don't know.

As I've said many many many many many many times before now: we don't know. I can't answer a question to which the correct answer is simply not known.

No, not "just like before the BB". The entire "before the BB" is part of your model; there is nothing to compare it to in BB theory.

That part is not in conflict, as BB theory simply makes no claims about the time before the BB. As I've said many many many many many many times before now.​

That's actually a good point: who is versed in your model, except for you?

That is incoherent; spacetime cannot be moving through itself.

In the tautological sense; yes, of course. But I suspect I don't understand what point we should have agreement upon here? Can you please explain what you mean by this?

Yes, of course. The dimensions are (as you already pointed out) abstract, while energy and mass are obviously not. Therefore, they cannot be the same, and thus a distinction between the two follows automatically.

Mainstream BB theory (currently) doesn't make any claims about the temporality of the contents of the universe (or even the permanency of the dimensions), as I've said many many many many many many many times before now. There are (educated) guesses and (reasonable) speculations about what happened before those moments shortly after the big bang, but as far as I know, this specific issue has not been settled yet.

 

If you observe that space/ time in some way possibly existed in the pre-BB era, is it possible that it is only the content, laws, energy and mass started to exist and started to move through it, in it, like in the ESM model?

When I trigger your manay many--- comments, it is not because I play dumb, or are obstinate. obviously we are talking past each other here. I trying to convey the Expanding through eternal time perspective, and you objection to it in terms of BB started everything (most of the time) so please bear with me.

 

Here we agree, there is a possibility, certainly. so with that possibility, the ESM model can work, starting with the big bang point in time expanding outward through (the agreed to possible) , existing timespace or spacetime. . The model (the universe) is not of course, just abstract measurements, directions, spreading radially, but the content, the energy, the laws, the mass, confined to the membrane.
We must agree, because if timespace or spacetime is fundamental, it is not them that move, but the content, us. lucky us.

That is why your objections are so useful. because they serve the triple task, to a define the model (see the 2 illustrations above too),by pointing out misapprehensions, b) give a picture of it, if you care, c) entertain the wider audience.

 

( adjectives removed for clarity).

Time clearly is not a thing, does not need to be part of any-thing or no-thing, Time exists independent of things. Krauss in his book : "A universe from Nothing" has a whole chapter to prove that there is, never was, such a thing as truly nothingsic, The void is full of zero sum energy, fluctuating ( timewise).
Fundamentally, for anything, even the void of nothing to exist, you need time. timespace
then you can have the universe in its space move through it, From the Big Beginning into the future.
PS: Just because the Big Beginning happened way back in a point of timespace does not mean it has been exhausted, disappeared, It is still out there, all around us, the universe, the membrane of the model. waiting for us to move through, into it. radially.

 

(I don't.)

Yes, that's a possibility.

Well, you keep asking me what I think about things that happened before/during the BB, and I don't know. So stop asking me those things.

No, I didn't agree to that. I'm not even sure that's a coherent statement (if we're using the standard definitions of time and space). If spacetime existed before/during the BB, that doesn't automatically lead to "the big bang point in time expanding outward through existing timespace or spacetime."

That depends on your definition of movement. If you define it to mean something along the lines of "changes in the spatial coordinate over time", then yes, spacetime can't move. But if it's define to be more-or-less the opposite of static (i.e. any changes over time are caused by movement), then the expansion of spacetime will be movement.

But shouldn't a goal also be to get other people to believe your model to be true? Gathering evidence that your model is true?