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

I think your best bet would be to have a brief conversation with a law expert, perhaps in a uni near you, or your friendly neighbourhood lawyer about that. If you are not claiming what you paste as your own creation, or use it for monetary gain, you refer to it as part of a conversation, in the USA there is a provision for fair usage, as part of an argument, illustration. Nobody could or would enforce such " infringement" , except nick pickers that want to stir trouble, trying to be big by attempting to make others small.
But people should be proud of their work and have it recognized, if so, they should state that clearly. Some of the images on Google do that by splaying their logo over the pictures , some are grouped and bracketed.
The above Wonoto creation is from a paper 2002? unable to contact the family. All the credit to him, from all of us. His paper an interesting read, even has Carl Sagan lecturing in the beginning.
Most creators should be tickled pink to have their work thusly spread. imho.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can you credit the artist if you don't acknowledge them, or even know who they are?

Yes, and I'm telling you that your inability to do so may result in you performing an illegal act. Ignorance never is a valid legal excuse.

I understand how you come to that conclusion, but that never was my intention. The main reason I brought it up was to point out your extreme hypocrisy regarding crediting artists.

Pointing out actual illegal activity is not a witch hunt.

Again, others doing something is no excuse for you to do it as well.

Are you saying international law doesn't apply to where you are?

True, but please point me to the part of the law where it states that under fair use, attribution isn't needed.

Again, please point me to the part of the law where it states that under fair use, attribution isn't needed.

Also, please proof that your countries laws apply here.

But even if it is fully legal what you did, it's still morally reprehensible and hypocritical: you saying you believe artists should get all credit due, and you being yourself unable to give the artist that made a picture you are using any credit at all!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is impossible to give credit, if the artist does not include the logo (c) xyz. or (tm) abc. I gave credit to anonymous, what more do you want?. My personal name was for years on in - house packaging for an invention , trademark, patent number of major North American retailers. Failure to identify you as the creator negates your right to complain about lack of receiving personal credit. Without attribution by the originator, for non commercial use, it is up to the copyright tm owner to seek redress. failure to brand their product, creation (tm) (c) hampers the good faith occasional user like us here to give personal credit. Not everybody here is a computer sleuth, and why should they be, Originators are desperate to see their brainchild flourish. Think of Solomon and the baby with the two claimant mothers. I believe Mr Wonoto would be tickled pink to discover, if he could be reached now, that his paper, drawing Fig 5 has found an audience that appreciates it, shares his ideas. Given the choice to have it used or not without an immediate attattribution of his name, what decision would he make in his obscurity, you-all think?
Your nitpicking is not endearing yourself with viewers, who all like to see productive debate, and the best evidence, graphically presented here, with due credit.
Your ad hominem type disruptions might be in vogue in your surroundings, culture, as a debating, debasing tool, but do nothing to establish your status here.
Please stick to the meat of subject matter, where your objections were appreciated and helpful.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nebel said: The question is about the kind of expansion through time, the radius, would experience by a 50 foot expansion of the membrane to reach the cables position, . In other words: does the 50 foot circumference to 8 foot radius ratio hold for the membrane of any size, cable or not?

I like to highlight this exchange about the conditions of the timespace outside the membrane/ universe again. Because the "rope" with qualities like certain components of the material of the membrane (which is assumed to contain all the universes mass, and its varieties, and made from it), can be thought of as a probe extended out there, spaced out at 8 feet everywhere (metric system is slow to conquer the construction industry). If we assume that Newtonian gravity has not been altered in the future, those two entities, part of the modeled universe, would attract each other. That attractive force would be present whether a probe is suspended there or not. from that follows, that
the universe or its components is exerting a great influence on the future, on timespace. whereas
No such equivalent action would be possible on the past. the inner surface of the sphere.
This is an unconventional observation on the ESM model, yes, but here it is. so be it.

 

to continue he monologue:
Moving through time has been compared to being in cars at relatively different speeds on a one way multi lane highway (in the membrane). reading the speedometer, noticing the the accumulating miles. now,
It would be difficult to convince rational drivers that they are not in control to a certain extent of their future, via brakes, gas pedal and steering , the road ahead of them, so
our decisions, actions influence to a degree what transpires in the future, but we are not talking
about conscience, directed action with the ESM model, but existing physical effects, gravity, magnetism. That too extends in to the future in the ESM model now in time. so:
the timespace future is in some way, yet to be explored, influenced by the expanding membrane universe , perhaps reciprocrately. and since
timespace is thought to exist not only now around the membrane universe , but also to have existed already before the Big Beginning. the processes might be related, the same, perhaps different in concentration, size, spread only. .

 

Then how did you obtain a copy of this picture? Did you even attempt to find out its creator when you found it? If not, why do you consider giving the artist his due credit not worth enough to spend that little amount of effort?

What I wanted is for you to spend even the slightest amount of effort to find out who this "anonymous" is. It took me less than a minute, and I even had to figure out where this image came from in the first place!

No, copyright is automatic, even if it isn't enforced. What you are saying here is: it's OK to steal stuff if the creator doesn't find out and/or sue you. I violently object to such arguments on moral grounds.

Sure, but that doesn't void copyright, and it doesn't negate the fact you appear to have spend a total of zero effort to find the creator. Again, how did you obtain a copy of the image? Did you consider looking at the website you copied it from to perhaps find its creator?

So it's OK to break the law if you are not capable of performing a desired action without breaking the law? Might I suggest not performing the action, so there is no law breaking happening at all?

Ah, you have been in contact with Mr. Wonoto about his wishes for his creation? If not, what gives you the right to put such words in his mouth?

Ah, you have not been in contact with Mr. Wonoto. Then the question remains: what gives you the right to put such words in his mouth? What gives you the right to speak for him?

Now you are calling Mr. Wonoto "obscure", and are making decisions for him. I called your action morally reprehensible before, but I believe I should now call you as a person morally reprehensible.

And now you presume to speak for this thread's viewers.

Yes, and if you were to give due credit in the first place, that would be much appreciated, thank you very much.

They are not ad hominems: I am not rejecting your arguments through personal attacks.

And now you presume to know my surroundings and culture.

I have learned a long time ago that one should avoid morally bad people. I think I'm going to do just that.

 

@ nebel,
I agree with much of what you posit, but the concept of an infinite "timespace"seems to me an unneccessary complication. Why does there have to be anything at all prior to the beginning?

I understand the argument of causality in regards to the BB, but as I understand it, time is not causal, thus would not contribute to the imperative of a beginning.

Moreover, I have real trouble with the concept of an infinite pre-existence of any condition, except the concept of "nothingness", which by definition is permittive, but not necessarily causal to everything.

 

It is very convenient to think of existence just as your, own , your family, tribe, your culture, and not think of causes as far as we can.
admittingly, the concept of time space kicks the can of causes down the road a bit, but in the Expanding Sphere Membrane model universe, there is movement into the future, coming out of the past, These concept deal with what is outside the membrane. It aligns what we know now about the void.
Yes, it possible adds unnecessary complications, but the we do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

Yes time itself does not cause anything, nor does timespace which includes any happenings in infinite time, but
without time, even a potential would not exist, even nothing needs time to exist in. and the void id not void totally.

good, that why the model does not address the idea of causality, because even with the precept that time, and the content of nothing to be infinite, the question of cause{s} is left to its own. The pre BB void id not thought to be nothing any more. but:
If Nothing caused the process of the start of the Big Beginning, ok, but the time had to be ripe, time had be right, and had to exist for it to happen. get the point? in time.

 

If the artist/ writer was adamant to have this particular portion of their work not in the public domain, namely Google images, they should have attached to, as those that want to have, an attribution to them.
Mr Wonoto, in his paper mentioned that he is eagerly reaching out to have part of his work considered. He is out of reach for me. For all we know, he might be unaware that part of his good paper is having public exposure now.
Perhaps you should accept the fact that is morally reprehensible to accuse somebody of theft, when the owners of the alleged booty, do not share your sentiment, are in fact most eager to have it dispersed, exposed.
We will be very pleased to have the owners any of the images that we unmodified used identify themselves, and take it from there. Do you represent them in any way? Have they authorized you to hunt for thieves? or are you just exposing yourself to being established as morally reprehensible?
"Thief," "morally reprehensible" , your words not mine.
Many of us here on these forums.

 

Spatial size or Temporal duration of "infinity" are meaningless terms, IMO.

I see infinite time as equal to a single instant. There is no quantitative or qualitative difference, IMO..

IOW, the moment there was nothing, there was something, a singularity, which expanded without any physical restriction, the "inflationary epoch".

But IMO, it is the change caused by the inflationary process which created the subsequent energy to form particles, etc. The moment when these particles started to interact physically is the moment when measurable time lines (duration) became a part of the equation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
If you like, we can even add the duration of the inflationary epoch and get something like ; the universe is ~13.7 billion years + ~10^-36 seconds old. Before then there was no timespace or spacetime. There was only a single quantum event. Perhaps the instantaneous collapse of an abstract infinity into an abstract singularity and an unrestricted bounce-back and the creation of energy itself.

I believe the Inflationary Epoch is what Bohm called the state of "pure potential" in which Implications emerged which became expressed as physical stuff, during the cooling period.

 

I agree with that assessment, based on my , experience inside the universe. I am 88 years alive,( if you count embryos as alive), but my life/time perception is of zero length. I lived always in the zero length " now" and adding up 88 years worth of ""nows makes me feel the the time is gone, like nothing. That does not mean though, that there was not real time existing besides my "nows" The nows actually could be just part of an eternity, are real infinity, . probably are, similarly,
because the Big Beginning cascade was starting with a "now" zero point in time[space] does not mean there was no time outside that point, reaching back to infinity. Infinity into a real past, not just an infinity of local points in time crammed together.

[QUOTE="Write4U, post: 3503372, member: 261885"---]the state of "pure potential--"[/QUOTE]

I understand your concern with a meaningless "Temporal duration"; n the idea that even a potential would require the existence of time as a 4st or first dimension, but that how it would appear in the expanding model, because it is still moving in and into the same realm.
Sorry, can not engage into the very intricate Bohm et al pro and con debate. Better minds are destined to deal with that.

 

I suggest to you, that you, by introducing terms like thief, stealing, morally reprehensible person , have turned what was a good natured, if ecentric debate on science/philosophie into a contest of moral character? . asserting that the authors of the artwork did not create it for, and have it left displayed unattributed in the public domain, with the expressed and implied intend to have it given the greatest exposure? .

Has it occurred to you, that you have put yourself in danger of being seen as morally reprehensible, to have done that, and tried to hinder, thwart these authors to get the exposure that they crave? In the process
Taking up valuable space and time for baseless denigrating comments of your opinions?

 

I can see, that you, and your correspondents are fascinated with the building process, the Big Beginning and the equations no doubt tell you much. having insights, like: It would be great to be a sculptor,- like my grandfather, -- standing before a trunk of wood, and already seeing a beautiful lady inside, and then just chiseling all the wood around it away to expose her--, kind of insight, but cosmological insight founded on formulae.

The expanding sphere membrane model in my view sidesteps this crucial period in time. Crucial, because of course we would never talk about an expanding universe picture if it were not for the processes that marked the Big Beginning.so,
In the models view, the BB would be part, the initial phase of the membrane, the universe, the essence of it all. but
Looking beyond that,
in the total model, there is still the pre BB condition, the ready to pounce fellow traveler of infinite time out there, in the future, all around us, into which the membrane still expands. moving through more and more of it, through timespace, in the membrane becoming for a moment spacetime Perhaps this process contributing to the momentum, acceleration that we allegedly experiencing. so:
Yes I see the fascination, twisdom of dealing with the "Birth" of the universe, but
It leaves the uncomfortable cause question to be answered for that discrete point in time , but by
assuming that time is fundamental, and with it, whatever conditions, possibilities, potentials, virtual zero balances, to be fundamental and infinite too, like in timespace, we have pushed that question beyond our horizon, because that where it should be, as it is possibly unanswerable, unimaginable, unmanageable for us. truly
Infinite, not to be trivialized into an infinitely small confine.

 

I would argue that there is no kind of physical pre-existence, except in the form of an permittive abstract potential of a permittive condition, with a random probability measurement of becoming expressed once in an infinite timespace, and boom, Time of existence began. Which would support your argument.
But timespace is "not a causal" dimension.

But IMO, time was irrelevant because the pre-condition only existed as a timeless set of hierarchical abstract mathematical potentials, producing an implication for a probabilistic event, a singularity that went "boom" and the beginning of physical reality, which starts, according to Bohm, as a potential Implication, an abstract image of what all abstract mathematical potentials combine to create an implication of what is to follow, a singular and "causal" event, which also created the dimension of time.
3D + t1 = (physical) Reality = space/time

Even if the timespace is potentially infinite, it would make no difference , as much as it makes no difference where the center of the universe is located, the singularity which was causal to the universe.

How can infinite "timespace" change or move to create time of duration?
How can you measure time with time, or even as time?

I do not see a Bohmian potential Implicate in that fundamental assumption.

You are looking at it linearly as sequential in a dimension of time, I look at it non-linearly as an instantaneous event creating all dimensions in a single instant at the same place, at the same time, "t0 <> t1", a physically explicated possibility.

 

In the Expanding Sphere Membrane model, (which is admittedly very simplistic), and potentially wrong, the point in time [space] still exists in the past, verey entity in the membrane, universe ~ equally distant from it in past time. In reality, every one of us in whatever past form, was packet into that BB seed, so the BB is us, all around the universe. As you stated: "it makes no difference" perhaps not, as it is gone forever, and we have to deal with effects of events that closer to us in time on the radius that we traversed since the Big beginning.
The Idea that timespace's being infinite or not, makes no difference, as you said, to us either, as our biggest worry lies 5 billion years ahead, but as I said, at least we do not have to worry about another beginning, causality.

As has transpired here since the Merging galaxy question, In the model, time does not move, by itself needs no measurement, but is the "holder" so to speak of all potentiality, all the conditions that are now thought to make up the void, nothing [sic] that had to be construed to explain "a universe from nothing". Time has become occupied, or is temporarily taken up by the space, energy and matter of the universe, but as seen as a membrane, that is a zero length presence in an infinite unmoving dimension. Admittedly,
Timespace has to respond to the relativistic responds effects of the movement of energy mass through it, as it is interwoven with space into spacetime. but as the prevous posts on the shell theorem show, the time dilation effects, would reach into the future, the outside of the membrane/universe, not the past. In the model, there is a similarity between the future timespace condition and its pre-BB "state".

would that not be the other way around? The model having fundamentally on non sequenced, non directional timespace, and you operating within a strongly sequenced cascade of events with a Big Beginning? I am fully accepting that, just that I can just not help looking beyond that., Even though the model says that we can not actually see more the 1/3 of what is out there now. In other words we know there is now more than we can see, the model assumes that if we could see time, the vision would reach into infinity, not only into the BB. Yes, my vision is very linear, narrowed in, untainted by all the knowledge that is out there.

I will have to read and understand the teachings of Bohm. thank you.

 

Agreed, in the emergence of the Expanding Sphere model, there was never in the back of my mind the idea of time developing only at the point in time of the BB. of which the Bohmian potential concept must play are role, so, I can not discuss of which I have no understanding . But here is

An audacious idea implicit in the mode: It time is infinite, and still exist in the same condition now, as it did prior the the BB, then our moving into time is in a minor, diluted way akin to that seminal event that started us all. The difference being that we now have a membrane to live in which must have an influence of the time it is moving into, and prior to the BB the membrane, and that influence did not exist. so something very concentrated had to have happened around that point. To have timespace emerging into spacetime, with the addition of space.Always keeping in mind though, that
The universe, although showing permanece, ( thank you very much), exists only one zero length moment at a time.
I don't feel a mini BB going off as I move into my future. (well sometimes I do, when it counts.***) In the model,
The universe started to move through timespace, and it still does, but on a larger front, 86.7 light years, and therefore weaker in intensity at the local level now.

 

I think we are not that far apart except for semantic interpretations. What you call "infinite timespace" which existed before the BB, I call a timeless permittive condition, which does not assume a pre-existing time or space, because an infinity of nothingness is not a geometric construct which produces time coordinates within it.
IMO, infinite "nothingness" cannot be defined as having any properties. It is an abstract concept.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nothingness

I see in your model that before the BB (inflation) there existed a state of timespace which was unrelated to the existence and duration of a physical something, but related to the existence and duration of a state of infinite "void or emptiness" as described in (3)
If my understanding is correct, you picture nothingness as infinite in scope with an associated infinite time frame.
Correct me if I am wrong.

But IMO, that would be a meaningless assumption, as nothingness would preclude the existence of any properties (such as space) and therefore would have no associated time frame , because as soon as we have space, we woud no longer have timespace, but spacetime (the duration of a dynamical physical space.)

As I understand mainstream science, there is no timespace outside spacetime. The universe is not expanding outward into timespace (a vast expanse of nothingness) it is just an expanding singularity which is creating a geometric construct with spacetime coordinates. There is nothing outside it.

btw, I cannot find a definition for the term "timespace". Which is understandable, as time has no dimension in and of itself. Time (duration or geometric coordinate) is a result, not a causal host condition.
______________________________________________

However, if we assume a multiverse (there is nothing that would argue against that probability), then the argument of a larger condition outside our own universe, which is constantly creating new universes could be true.
But then the use of the term "nothing" outside our universe would be incorrect and/or misapplied and should be replaced by the term "unknown somethingness"

I ran across this article in the National Geographic which may be of interest in this regard.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...ce-universe-end-of-time-multiverse-inflation/

 

I am glad you can put it in words.
whereas in spacetime, like "teatime", the emphasis is on the structure that endures, starts, the term timespace was coined during this thread's discussion to express the priority of time, rather than the non-existing structure that time exists in indefinitely. The 1st dimension time, does not in a 3 directional space we are accustomed to, nevertheless is all pervasive into all ways, back in time forward into the future up and "downtime" if you will.
Since the void of nothingness has now taken on a new meaning, it is evident whatever definition will be assigned to it, it will a priori have to have time to exist in.
You will not find not find timespace in the dictionaries --yey-- because it just might have been minted right here. hopefully registered on the ticking clock of these forums, Not the first time that I have come up with a previously not existing idea. (nonconformists fate). hopefully it will stick, like other words that were first used in jest.

While it could be argued that the alleged existence of other universes argues in favour of infinite eternal time, it does not rely on that hypothesis.
Time will not cease to exist in 5 billion years, just because the Sun will extinguish our clocks on Earth. space time might fizzle out, the memrane dis intregate, but that would just be a blurb in infinite time, that still would have to accomodate the debri, errant radiation.
So to misquote Mark Twain, the news of time's death has been greatly exaggerated.
I really like your expression " unknown somethingness" hope it sticks, like timespace. of course the "thing" in it makes it kind of concrete, and the content of timespace might be more ephemeral.
I checked out David Bohm, too prolific for me to do quickly, a quagmire to get tangled up in.

 

True, in the model, interestingly it appears that the past, the interior of the membrane, its inner surface is not affected by any magnetism . The membrane constitutes a Faraday, Gaussian cage. provided that fields, forces affect the timespace outside,or inside surfaces of the membrane. Inner surface, the past not affected by gravity either, see shell theorem.

It is a broad strokes model, "flight without formula", but one thing that it indicates is, since we can receive radiation from ~13 billion years ago, we have a horizon that spans only 1/3 of the expanded universe, (the membrane). That is so, because we now are now looking back in time to the point in time of the bb, (which has disappeared from our universe forever). but along an expanded sphere only.

 

"--a sea of infinite extent can accept new particles even if it is filled--". from" Dirac infinite sea". wikipedia:
The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea.

so here you have pages of equations, dealing with infinity, which certainly must imply that it has to exist in infinite time, even timespace.

How can that "sea" exist without having the time to be held in? its beaches around it too? so:

Could you accept in some way, that there is more to time, timespace than we can momentarily understand.?, that it existed before the big bang, the "Dirac hole", and
still is out there for us, membrane dwellers, to move into, bequeathing us in the process, progress all the goodies it carries in it?