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:
    11,274
    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:
    1,458
    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:
    11,274
    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:
    1,458
    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:
    1,458
    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:
    11,274
    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:
    1,458
    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:
    1,458
    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:
    1,458
    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:
    1,458
    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
  14. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,458
    About the universe.
    W4Y, let us examine the concept of your "time created through motion" vs "expanding through fundamental, "stationary", infinite time, of this thread.
    using a local phenomenon, the tides or "haut mare'e"*.
    Do tides create [their]time?

    Imagine a non - rotating planet, like the Moon, who is in a tidal lock. That planet would have 2 permanent, difficult to see, "haut mare'e" " Gezeiten" tidal bulges.
    Now start rotating that planet. (Joshua did it). Now suddenly you have tides that "arrive" in ~12 hour intervals. but these tides "haut mare'e*" high seas , the bulges, existed in time before.
    By rotation, you have created perceptible tides (the sea level was steady before) but: have you created Time?
    Tides exist as action of gravity on mass at different distances.
    Mass, with its gravity, is a form of energy. Energy is uncreated.
    Energy needs time to exist in; therefore, Time has to be uncreated, fundamental, infinitely old too. The tides d0 not create time. It is high time to get over the notion that they do. so,
    Before, and still outside the universe, we have energytime, in timespace, now we have mattertime in spacetime; soon it will be Holliday time, yuletide or whatever worthy religious preference you have coming up; so: Not all tides are high; but all are moving through time with our universe, expanding together like a sphere into time.
    the No. # 1 in the model sketch on page #38 , post #748.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2018
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,216
    My perspective is very simple. Time does not exist until necessary for duration of an event, at which time it becomes evidenced by duration of the event. There is no time for something that does not exist.
    A muon has a timeline of a few planck scale moments before it decays and its timeline stops.
    http://www.physics.smu.edu/cooley/phy3305/lectures/muon_slides.pdf

    I view time as emerging simultaneous to "duration" of existence or work, including motion. All things have their own timeline in addition to the grand chronological "SpaceTime"

    Every event starts at t=0 at its own timeline and chronologically counts duration of the event, which can be in measured in increments of planck time to spacetime.

    There is a universal space timeline which started at the BB, i.e. (st = 0---> uncertain future)

    But there was no time before the BB, there was no measurable change. BB = st 0-------> end of spacetime, when there will be no longer any measurable change (infinite stasis) of all things in the universe and time ceases to exist. No change.

    IMO, time is a recording of duration of all things individually, bundled or combined as;
    world-line (particle), world-sheet (string), world-volume (brane).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Nov 3, 2018
  16. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,458
    The expanding through time model agrees with all that. Minkowski himself, with his world line too, was confined there. so: expanding from that agreeable base:
    Energy is un-created, describes world lines only since some of it turned into matter in/at the BB. All matter world lines are in the expanding sphere.
    Some Energy turned into "things" at the BB, but time preceded that, because energy, being infinitely old, un-created, exists in a pre -BB "world block" or energytime contained in timespace.
    the No. # 1 in the model sketch on page #38 , post #748.
    added thought: only the universe in the expanding sphere is real, There are no actual concrete series of lines stretching back in a spiral to the BB. The past #2 is empty,
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2018

Share This Page