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

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That looks very much like my example;

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Except this model includes Bohm's Pilot Wave.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

of course, that is from your post # 3 , sorry if the credit did not show,

I am so balled up that I can not reply right, edit, image.
sorry, but that is a oscillating sausage, and I resisted to use the analogy of a more controversial (in strictly catholic lands) counterproductive likeness.

In the contest of the models,
The linear universal timelines, light cones are sausage shaped, one x axis mainly.
the spherical expanding model is, well, time - multi-directional, revealing.
each one with it's advantages.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is the supplementary image , a section cut of the green/yellow double caps above.
The radius 0A creates the upper surface BAF and the lower surface BOF, and the rim passing through points B and F.
An observer at A would see all the signals in the part of the membrane BAF, that comprises now all the end of timelines, that have passed through the now empty inner shell in the past.
That inner shell shown here in the area ABOF is the light cone of the observer at A, now the empty past in the expanding Sphere, not a cone but a light bowl.
Questions?

 

bold added for clarity.
That was a cleverly worded question, to expand on an explanation of an expanding universe, it's model. so:

After listening to you all queries, objections, and reflections, it boils down to this:

What would the universe look like if we gave time as a 1st dimension the importance it might deserve, like in timespace instead of spacetime?
What would the universe look like if we mapped all matter that has moved the same distance through time from the Big Beginning the origin starting point in time ? including relativistic effects on time.
Would it not be an expanding membrane still on the move? in other words, an expanding sphere is not just a totally abstract, artful artificial construct, just a model.
The universe is really made up of stuff that all has moved the same distance through time since the BB.

 

Thank you for your reply.

I dont have any answers.

If you enjoy your speculation that is ok.

What if our observations suggesting the Universe is expanding have been misinterpreted what then?

What if the Universe is contracting?

What if it is static?

What if it is all in your imagination and you are the only living creature and the rest of us are just toys put in your cage to entertain you?

alex

 

Well, if it never expanded it must have existed an infinite time in the past, and that would make time infinite, which is one of the possibilities in the model. Any movement in the universe , would be measured on the x axis of time, at right angles to motion in space. both the images in post 560 would apply.

well, time would be measured as going forward at a right angle to the contracting membrane. . The universe/membrane contracting back toward the starting point. through the empty past. Post #2 even suggesting that 7 such partial contracting phases have occurred already. In case of the sausage model universe closing off the casing in the future. In the contracting sphere, to a future big crunch, perhaps back through the Dirac hole filling the infinity Dirac Sea.

A static universe/membrane would still have to sustain itself against the gravity, tension in space, which is accomplished through the energy of proper motion. Any such motion requires the movement through time. It is just that it would not be compulsory uni- directional. If it always was static, then there was no beginning and time would have to be infinite. That all would be questioning the current mainstream science mode, and I did not want to contradict mainstream science at all, just show what the results imply, if looked at in a different light.

You must be able to tell, that I am not taking an egocentric view to all of this. to the contrary, the model shows that we are not even central to observing the whole universe, membrane. This thread is another step away from our: we are so important view, we can not even see 1/4 what is really out there, what has happened since the beginning, or eternity, if your objections above are valid (which they might).
I assure you that I have healthy personal relationships. It serves me well to consider others superior to me. and I value your comments.

Post Script: The expanding Sphere model is not new, is based on current mainstream thought, but highlights features not everybody always saw before.

 

If you had all the answers why did you ask me any questions.

I like the way you think about things.

My only suggestion is to remain open to the possibility that no matter how well thought out our ideas we may nevertheless be incorrect at multiple levels.

I like to think well it could be this or it could be that...big bang and steady state can exist together with room for any new model that comes along...but I wont bet the house on any.
Alex

 

Thank you, and that is the beauty of these conversations, because I learned so much from that first OP question, the answers really. I know. as you implied, that more objective objections will shed light and force rethinking of that model, how it works. out. great!

 

We dont know what we dont know , I mean I know of course, and when I say we I dont include me☺

I think the big bang and dark matter will give way to new and better models which of course has folk saying that I am crazy but really I can think what I like because as I said I wont bet the house on anything so I am not committed to exclusively entertaining the current models and just like Albert blew everyone out of the water I suspect there will be many steps forward of a similar nature that will have us privy to understanding we can not at this point even imagine...or we may already know everything.
Alex

 

.
Well suppose that has started, but we know that yet. Andromeda is coming closer, but everything else has been going away from us in the expansion (remember we see only the past) for the last 13.8 Billion years. now,
The model tells us, that we look back that long in a panorama We have a cap horizon of ~ 27 billion years across. But he universe is 3 times , 4 times bigger, as measured in the membrane sphere. so: The ESM model prediction:
Given that the speed of light c stays constant, our horizon should stay constant, expand our view, as the universe shrinks. . The 3/4 of the cosmos hidden from us now, should gradually come into view, looking warmer than we are used to seeing everything though. When the membrane has shrunk to 1/4 it's present side, we should be able to see it all.
That does not mean that the past will be recreated, it is gone, just that we see more of it, as it gave off radiation then.
We would see kind of a wave effect appearing tough, all near events like on Andromeda would become blue shifted , assuming the contraction happens from the outside in, otherwise we would see diminished redshift everywhere. The future will be not infinite, but limited , and long term determinable.

The model says we know only 1/4, but the laws should be the same everywhere anybody looks, even beyond the horizon (all 100% come from the same source). "Steps forward"? Alternate theories? they will be opposed and hotly contested,- as they should be. Someone said: " Theories are not abandoned, they just fade away with the death of their proponents." Some deaths are nearer than others.

 

The theory that stress caused ulsers ? hopefully is stone cold now that the specialist treating them under that assumption have all hopefully retired or died.

I have said it many time the sooner the theory of inflation is replaced the better...I know its arguement from incredulity but really from zip to all there is effectively in a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second....and no one thinks that is probably wrong...not to mention via that approach there are countless uniniverses...all without one single shread of evidence...how do you see the proposition of inflation...When replaced I would be hiding all copies of that one away or running them thru the shreader.

alex

 

Could you accept a pre-condition where time is non-existent. In such a condition a zillionth of a second is equal to a zillion years.
Remember the famous quote; Space is what keeps things apart, Time is what keeps things from happening all at once.

IMO, Inflation occurred at the same place at the same time all at once. Result....BB and FSL Inflation. IOW, pure unbounded chaotic energy.

The point you make is from our current perspective of our observes universal rules and restrictions, but was that always the case?

 

Deleted for duplication.

 

assuming you are asking all of us,
I for one have difficulty accepting the precondition to our Big Beginning to be possible without having time to be there to allow them. IMHO, time is fundamental, infinite. carried forward into the ESM model. Even into the future the universe expands into.

The elephant in the room, energy available to have expansion, matter appear out of Nothing (sic). Then, - as Xelasnave.1947 objected, more energy to drive massive hyper-c expansion, as seen in the sausage models of the universe (posts #3 and 560). Energy available, but no pre-BB time for it. Energy is not supposed to be possible to be created or destroyed in all forms , so: is it fundamental, infinite too, as the time to have it exist in?
Is it not best to push those questions even further away than to have to answer them all just from 13.8 billion years ago? push them beyond infinity? (there is always more room beyond, in infinity). no need to be finicky.

Good question, good reasoning. but once you disregard the current successful mechanism totally out of hand for all past time, where would the chaotic speculation, science fiction end, making even the religious phantasies of the past a legitimate explanation of reality?

yeah, perhaps energy can be created, but even that would take time. timespace really.

 

Perhaps not necessarily so. Regardless of the event of the Beginnining, I agree that a certain condition made the beginning possible.

But, I have hope that we can make our way backward from available and yet to be discovered knowledge of the earliest conditions after the Event.

We say that we cannot "see" what was before the beginning, but should we not be able to make a deduction from all the possible available data, i.e. the mathematical data allowing us to determine the necessary cause or condition?

I know today we can barely detect the afterglow, but we do have (hopefully) a few more billion years to gather more precise data...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well I really do not know.

Although it would seem apparent we model the universe upon a theory called the big bang or is the proper title big bang cold dark matter theory?The word theory does not mean something someone thought up a seeming a good idea it means for most applications the current facts accepted by science supported by much more than some fool like me saying now this would work... and the theory has made testable predictions and the perhaps most compelling prediction is the Cosmic Background Radiation.

However we only have the theory to look back past that point I believe and so I would submit that inflation is not evidenced by observation..I dont know and state my impression so if you know of observation that supports inflation please tell me..

The big bang theory on some accounts was dead in the water because of a percieved problem with sameness ...the reasoniing was that for everything to be the same that could only be explained by a period of inflation such as the theory of inflation sets out.

All I wonder is maybe instead of the period between the original condition and the appearance of the background radiation may have been much much longer..certainly long enough so as not to require what I consider to be a situation where everything inflated at a rate that really is impossible to imagine..at the rate of inflation one may as well say it all appeared at once...maybe it did all appear at once everywhere which as hard as even that would be to swallow is perhaps a little more believable than inflating from a single point.
I dont know but how do you see this?


Well one aspect may be that the percieved problem was not a problem at all... so I would think another approach could be to say well sameness came from a condition somewhat built in and required no local association which seems to be the concept that brought inflation into an acceptable way to say the big bang.... we dont understand perhaps that there was no requirement for stuff to be all together at one point merely to remove the percieved problem.

What if the period we need for inflation was not needed to fix the suggested problem of sameness that threatened to have the theory thrown out. In other words the problem was not real but dealt with un necessarily and as such we end up with this what I would call undigestable notion of inflation.

And I know all I do is speculate.. can anyone do more than speculate past the back ground radiation...but can we see any attempts to define reality prior to the background radiation as really more than sophisticated speculation?..really what do you call science with out observation in support?... can the theory of inflation be considered much more than specualtion is so far that it has no basis from observation...surely in this environment one idea is as good as the next because I cant see that we can call the theory of inflation anything more than a speculation supported by math..please tell me why I am wrong as I am after all simply trying to work out the infancy of the universe..no big deal..simple stuff to chat about.

But I remind myself of the words of Karl Popper who said if one does not understand a theory it is because one does not understand the problem it sort to fix...I wonder about those words and their implication here...do scientists see the theory of inflation as a placeholder until they can make observations to give them something more to go on?

I guess whatever was inflating somehow does not have to obey C..we know that ..we are told that it was energy and not bound by C...but really on what observation can we arrive at such a conclusion..I dont think there is any basis other than mathmatically we can set out a such a senerio.

I guess all I can do is sit back and try to understand what real scientists are working out..They may already see inflation as a placeholder awaiting some observation so they can work out what really went on.



Well I really feel uncomfortable proceeding on math alone.. certainly it seems that is only math that suggests inflation that condition that I simply feel must be impossible..If we accept inflation it to me is saying God did it...maybe that is what a thinking person is supposed to conclude......anyways what I think is not important.

My views really come back to the fact that the Catholic Church was smitten with the idea of a comic egg..or a cosmic atom. and I suspect they sort to reconcile science with their idea of a point of creation...now of course folk will call me a nut for suggesting such but when it all boils down Doctor A E had worked out sums for a universe that was static and I imagine with the church banging on about a cosmic egg or atom and Hubble saying he had discovered a expanding universe he rolled over..he was smart and certainly would not be silly to stand in the way of what seemed like a predetermined cosmology. I mean we had the egg concept then the math followed..I thought it should be observation then hypothisis etc..but it seems historical fact it went egg first then the theory and math.. does anyone understand what I am saying here or have you all signed off...he is raving again ho hum...I dont want to prove anything I would like to know if anyone has these thoughts that I have...I read the history and the conclusion I draw seems reasonable.

I dont know and can only speculate using little knowledge and having not studied anything I am talking about...so what would I know. but as they say even a broken clock can be right twice a day..what do you think..I can take it..Frankly I would rather be told there is nothing to my thoughts about the cosmic egg and need for a creation point and religion did not guide the cosmology.

If the suggestion is the period of inflation, although we now see it as a zillionth of a second etc, but it was actually zillions of our years, well ok, but I dont know where that is laid out...probably GR or SR will tell us that is the way to look at i,t, well if that is so why this need to tell us... like DeGrassey says..a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second..if it was our equivalent of a zillion years say so..if if not to say so... what does that suggest..I say it may be about providing a moment of creation. Lets face it all involved would love to marry science and God and really to me it seems that is what is going on...

So what is the truth...well I dont know but at least that answer avoids speculating about multi universes or a point of creation.

ANd of course we dont know what happened at the moment of the big bang yet we know what was going on a split second after..that to me smacks of creating a situation where the church can have their cosmic egg or cosmic atom or as I really suspect their God creation point.

Anyways everyone can now tell me why what I suggest is wrong or that our current cosmology is set in stone and can not be anything but right.

All I say is really not unreasonable given we are talking about stuff that happened some 13.6 whatever billiion years ago how can anyone be so certain of what took place.

As I said Dr A E the guy who formulated GR was happy with a static universe..he had a cosmological constantwhich now actually is being re considered, but not to work in a steady state universe but in an expanding one...

Personally I see no reason to think of the universe as anything other than static...but of course that goes entirely against anyone who wants a point of creation in their cosmology.

Let the speculation continue I have had my stab completly uninformed.... so for those reading this post please realise there are professionals who actually know what they are talking about listen to them not me..And see my post as what happens when you dont get a break in the weather and all the time money and effort spent on an astro trip goes to nought..yes I am bored and cranky.

alex

 

For one, in a purely permittive condition where the restriction of "c" did not yet exist, near instantaneous expansion could occur by a mega-quantum event.

We speak of entaglement at a distance;
a) how does that happen?
b) how did they get so far apart from each other?

Lastly, according to Bohm's Wholeness, our universe is still a singularity and that includes our "empty" spacetime, which we now know is not empty at all

 

I thought a singularity was a amth cut off point??

What I am asking upon what basis..specificallyfor an observation that entitles us to make this assumption if you know of any?

alex

 

According to Bohm, science should begin with viewing the Universe in it's totality, the Wholeness, as compared to it's individual properties.

I don't know nearly enough to even make a rough guess, other than that before the beginning there must have existed a permittive condition. I think that can be said with some confidence.

But apparently some disturbance created the singularity which subsequenty expanded unimpeded by any natural law as we know them today. Inflation of the singularity, which we now call the Universe.

My hope is that given a permittive condition, more knowledge of the properties of the background glow can tell us something about the disturbance that was causal to the beginning of physical expression of energy. Bohm speaks of the enfolded and unfolded orders.

If we know the unfolded order, we might be able to assign an enfolded order. The potential that became explicated in our physical reality.