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. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    BB , suggests the space , time and speed are fundamental to this Universe .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    Yes, without them the universe as we know it would not exist, and without time being fundamental and the 1st dimension, there would be no space, no speed. Without speed, velocity, there would be no energy to counteract gravity. but
    serious thinkers also propose that time and energy are infinite, fundamental. period.
    infinitely older than the BB.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Time is fundamental ?

    How ?

    The only reason you suggest time is fundamental is because you read it somewhere that it is .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    I do not remember that, but of all the reading I do, like "from eternity to here", yes, that idea could have crept in. However I am capable of seminal thoughts, and prove it.
    That time is fundamental (for want of a better word) is the conclusion drawn from the fact that energy can not be destroyed or created, so must be fundamental, infinite, beyond our concept of cause and effect. Since energy has to have time to exist in, even a kind of "energy only space" and energytime (area#1) is within the range of possibilities. . so: here are the terms I did not read before they appeared on this thread:
    timespace, energytime, mattertime .
    even the spellchecker did not read them before, should have trademarked them.
     
  8. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    Yes, that can be said with certainty. In the works of Dirac, Penrose, others, time is seen to pre-date the BB, as in the field #1. Spacetime by contrast, having it's start in the BB #4, is confined to the expanding membrane universe #3 and #8. so,
    In the proposed model showing the primacy of time, The past, #2 interior, does not only contain no matter, it also does not comprise the 3 D space peculiar to this universe. Spacetime and it's matter, being shaped as a sphere, is prominent, extends through time #1 by its curvature, while, because of it's movement through time, it is truly temporary. The "now" applies to all the universe, and it is truly short.
    Hence the fundamental importance of the infinite timespace, energytime #1 we are moving into.
    All links go toward the constantly approaching the future, none exist - in, or to - the past.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Duration rather than time .

    Why ?

    Because duration is based on the interaction between things .

    Time is nothing more than the measurement of this duration , between things .
     
  10. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    true, inside the universe, where we have things, but things are matter made of energy, that must have existed before it became matter in mattertime, starting at the BB, a conversion from energy to matter, partially.
    The primitive sketch of the expanding sphere moving through time model works with c, equating time with the possible space/time expansion at that rate.
    Since pre-BB conditions are the subject of serious science, even if they are not strictly your "things" they still require time and if you absolutely have to, could be defined as intervals between energy events, right?, but then,

    If, as the equations indicate, energy is of infinite age, uncreated, even to measure any fluctuation for example, would, even by your standards, require duration, aka time.
    Time is fundamental, and things just are allowed to move through it for a certain period, length, duration, as the world, the clocks turn. On that ride,
    May you not have to let go for a long time. I wish you a long rivertime.
     
  11. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    NEW SCIENTIST article "---- Universe before us." 15 August 2018
    “What we claim we’re seeing is the final remnant after a black hole has evaporated away in the previous aeon,” says Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist at the University of Oxford.
    He is co-creator of a theory called conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC). It states that, rather than having started in the big bang, the universe infinitely cycles through periods of ballooning up and …

    Just as the sphere expanding through time model suggests, There was Time #1 before this universe. "previous aeons", energytime in timespace.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2018
  12. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=28195
    Dec 2, 2014 - General Relativity says that any form of energy is a source of gravity.

    so, assuming that energytime predated our masstime, and we are moving into the future, that still is the same infinite energytime, and gravity is a mutual attractive force (you are pulling the Earth up to you), then we can conclude that the universe
    in the membrane #8 and #3 is in part pulled into the future, besides being pushed by the energy from the initial acceleration.
     
  13. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,336
    FEATURE 19 September 2018
    “Evidence is building up to support the idea that the big bang might not have been the beginning” New Scientist magazine.

    If correct, Whatever preceded our universe's beginning most certainly needed time to exist, to happen in. The #1 energytime?
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2018 at 8:20 AM

Share This Page