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. nebel Valued Senior Member

    thank you for the link. Perhaps any conflict we had stems from my assumption that the model is seen in an absolute outside frame of reference, not from the viewpoint of an observer caught up on the membrane, or in the string. Or your attempts to project those effects into a negative pre-BB time frame.( a non existing situation in the model)
    Particularly the playing field, infinite time as a ur-paper surface, or as an ur-room, existing before our expanding space and it's starting point, puts it outside those theories. But inside spacetime, in the string or on the skin, I try to see these effects. I am looking for where it could be tweaked, I am sure, the stuck on the radius idea, because of maximum gravity is valid. so, I have no quarrel with Alber'ss results, just like to see how the Exp. Sph. model has to be modified, if necessary to accommodate.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    There is no possible distinction. If there is some kind of "outside frame of reference", the concept of it will be incompatible with theory of relativity. In other words, if your model is right, then the theory of general relativity is wrong. You can't have it both ways.

    Yes, indeed, "negative" time cannot exist in your model, but you claim that it does exist. Obviously that conflict needs to be resolved.

    I agree, but you then need to define what "space" and "time" even mean outside of the universe. (I'm not saying that can't be done, but it has to be done before one can reason about such things.)

    Well, two things need to go, if the expanding sphere model is to be made compatible with the theory of general relativity: there needs to be an explanation where the "negative time" is (which can be resolved by, for example, a bouncing universe), and the surface/skin has to be re-defined, as its current definition violates special relativity.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. nebel Valued Senior Member

    I am not aware of negative time existing in the models. there is neutral time, time that no space moves through, as in the pre-bb point in time era, surface, room, but ne negative movement through time.
    The skin's radii at given locations are already modified from an evenly theoretical expansion through time outward to one that is responsive to the relativistic effects of proper motion and mass-produced gravity down into extreme of the steep slope of a black hole "funnel" of a near "c" infalling matter disk.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, that's what I meant. Time corresponding to a negatively-valued radius in your model.

    But the problem is that this isn't possible in the theory of relativity. There is no such thing as "evenly", due to the relativity of simultaneity. Two events that are on a single skin when viewed from one frame of reference will be on different skins when viewed from another frame of reference. The only way to resolve this (without completely overthrowing your model) is to introduce an absolute reference frame, but that fundamentally violates the theory of relativity, as I already mentioned.

    In other words: your model is incompatible with the theory of relativity. If you want your model to be seriously considered, you have to come up with an alternative to the theory of relativity.

    How is "the skin's radii at given locations" already modified to take this into account? Please give the full definition of this modified skin.
  8. nebel Valued Senior Member

    NE: Using the black hole analogy, as soon as it formed, and there were black holes colliding a long time ago, at smaller radii, the membrane stretches back into the singularity that is stuck on the radius, in the shape of a deep funnel. having not moved through time anymore. The effects of the gravity are felt in the expanded membrane surface though. Other effects of mass would give less drastic deformations, but the membrane has very unevenly stretched, tensioned, depressed areas, responding to local mass and proper movements.
    The other relativistic effect, the zero movement through time at "c" is different as I mentioned earlier.
    An object, like an symbolic advancing 2D alligator for example, as it's speed stretches to 300 000 km tip to toe passing, becomes so slim, that her waist will shrink to zero, measured in the radius time direction (weight watchers de-light) light=c, no waist no weight, (almost). anyway, having left the clearing of the nebel (fog) after the Big Bang, that photon ali .. has traveled to us following the spiral path on the expanding membrane without ever having travelled through time , because it never had a presence or radial length there in the first place, since the moment it left. It is still as young and slim, as it was when it left. I just thought that through today, believe it or not. Even slimmer, because the membrane has stretched too. Light of course, has shrunk out of one space dimension anyway, so it already has a special zero 2D presence in space . You can not see it from the side. so? The expanding sphere is trying to shape itself just like Albert would have it.

    What the model is telling me, is : like time being fundamental, energy in a form as pure as a photon, particle or wave, also moves in the 1st dimension in a way that is special, free, fundamental, and somehow detached from the 3D frame that we are stuck in for the ride.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2017
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    You shouldn't use the word membrane; it implies a physical object. The skin (of the balloon) or surface (of equal time) is better.

    From our point of view, photons do travel through time, obviously.

    No; you can't switch to the reference frame of a photon and pretend it makes sense. Photons do not "shrink out of one space dimension".

    No, the shape of the sphere comes from the initial assumption of a homogeneous universe, and others. That the surface is roughly spherical is due to assumptions, not due to physics.

    Be careful; as I've demonstrated, the model is fundamentally flawed, so any conclusion drawn from it is immediately suspect.

    The model presupposes that (well, that spacetime is fundamental, anyway), so that's circular reasoning.

    That is a flawed conclusion, due to the inadequacies of the model.
  10. nebel Valued Senior Member

    I liked the picture of a membrane (not because the term 'brane" is in it), but "skin" implies an inner supporting structure, whereas a membrane is free floating, tensioned. resilient. shapeable in the model's case by gravity and velocity of proper motion objects. No skin lotions, cosmological cosmetics allowed.
    I used "skin" only to provide variety of terms.
    I know the model is simplistic but Occam's Razor might just work on this expanding membrane hairy skin.
    Yeah, "skin" you have a point here! NE. there is a difference in the property of the two surfaces of a skin, and even in an equal time membrane, the inner surface would be facing back into the past, be the hairy one (see black hole tubes stuck in the past).
    PS.warning!gross! the skin analogy is appropriate in the black hole black head mirror image of my youth, You could squeeze it out, proving it was a deep pore. yikes.
    bsw: The stretching alligator light wave with 0 waist is a stretch, , but better might follow.
    thank you for your patience. moderators. allowing tutoring on your site. a sight to behold!
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2018
  11. nebel Valued Senior Member

    That is well said, because if there is a suspect, the deed has to be examined. There is always the supposition, that there might be substance to the suspicion.
    That is why I value the objections, and hopefully not just I.
  12. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Thank you for introducing that term.
    think of the BH singularity stuck on the radius. that was the equal time sphere's size, when it formed.
  13. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Which is true for a balloon, but indeed not for your model. That's why "surface" is better. And, as I said, membrane implies a physical structure, which this surface doesn't have.

    But this surface isn't free floating, nor tensioned, nor resilient, so you're giving good arguments why it shouldn't be called a membrane!

    Pick one and stick with it for consistency; it's much clearer that way.

    You just said you don't like "skin", and now you are calling it a "hairy skin". Please don't.

    Also, Occam's Razor only works if your model actually explains anything. Let's compare to the theory of GR, shall we? The theory of GR doesn't need much; just the FRW metric, and done. Your model needs a complete replacement of the theory of GR, and a specific universe to work in. It's difficult to compare because you haven't given that alternative to GR (yet?), but I think we can say that your model can't be proven more simplistic than GR at this moment.

    Except the orientation of the surface here has no real meaning, by its definition.

    (No comment.)

    Sure, speculation is fun. All I was saying is that all its conclusions come with the same footnotes as the initial assumptions.

    What do you mean by "equal time sphere's size"?
    With "surface of equal time" I meant this: pick a certain time: for example: t = 100s. Take all the points in spacetime that have t=100s. They will form a hyperplane, but we can call it a surface to better match the balloon model interpretation.
  14. nebel Valued Senior Member

    In the model of where space and it's content is expanding through time, starting at the BB point, in infinite time, "equal time" would refer to the shared radius, adjusted for relativistic effects, that define , shape the near spherical membrane. radius= the amount of time a given location, objects has travelled through since the beginning.
  15. nebel Valued Senior Member

    well, The model recognises, that indeed the expanding skin, membrane has no structure, no substance even, just as the time we move through, the "now" has zero duration in time. problem with surface is, that it implies direction, and skin and membrane have two surfaces., hard to imagine with an entity that has no thickness. but yes, Messages in the skinny membrane are received from the past, and send into the future. That could imply two surfaces at least pointing into a direction of time.
  16. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Ah, OK, understood. So this sphere depends on the reference frame used, because it depends on the simultaneity of events, and therefor it cannot fundamentally be relevant for any physical arguments or calculations.

    So the problem with "surface" is that it implies direction, but membrane has a direction? What then is the problem with surface?
    And it's hard to imagine a membrane with zero thickness, because membrane typically have thickness. A surface on the other hand, typically doesn't. So you agree with me that at least in that respect, surface is a better term than membrane?

    But all of this is semantics: the surface/membrane/skin is bogus anyway, because it depends on the used frame of reference, and therefor cannot fundamentally be relevant for any physical arguments or calculations. Your model is irrelevant as long as GR or even SR holds, and you are a long way away from replace either with something better.
  17. nebel Valued Senior Member

    The previous models are good in their way still hold, even Kepler's, (who has imaginary triangles rotating through space) Newton's
    The expanding spherical model shows merely what it would look like, if time were not an exclusive artifact of our universe, but existed before, outside and in the future already. It is not a theory of everything. an easy to picture geometry mode. nothing more.
    It does not at all contradict the relativistic theorems of Albert the great.
    Take the bending of light past a massive object. in the expanding sphere that gravity would appear to shorten the radius, ( the movement through time) of the adjacent skin membrane surface. An observer would see a signal from further away as having traveled a shorter time ie, coming from closer that it is in fact. shortened radius= shortened movement through time.
    The idea, that there was no time in the infinite past, there is no time in the infinite future (both outside the present universe) seems to be shortsighted, pun intended. or?
    The problem with the term "surface"is, that it has an outside, but no exposed inside, in a zero thickness membrane, equivalent to the zero length 'now "in eternal time, there can be 2 surfaces, one facing the past. the other the future. Messages are sent into the future, but received from the past. try it. You would not just want to have the future surface, and never received anything from the past, like sunlight 8 minutes old? what the sun surface is sending now will enlighten you ~500 seconds from now, perceived at the inside surface, coming from (the past of the membrane). carrying with the measure of the increased radius.
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Sure, but we're talking about the expansion of spacetime itself here, something that isn't even conceptually possible in a Newtonian (or Keplerian) worldview. In other words, your model cannot be consistent with the view of reality without GR (or something to replace it).

    Perhaps, but it's completely unfounded speculation, and violates special relativity. To the best of our knowledge, your model is simply wrong.

    But it doesn't even do that properly. As I said, it violates SR, so the picture your model sketches is incompatible with our understanding of the universe.

    I have already proven it does; it is incompatible with the relativity of simultaneity of events, which is a inescapable result of SR.

    No, if the light "slows does" but does nothing more, then:
    1) There would be no bending.
    2) The observer would see any difference.

    Take a movie. Slow it down by a factor 2. Do things in the movie start playing out in a different way? No. Do the actors in the movie suddenly start worrying, because everything is playing out in slomo? No. Having an object move slower through time, and nothing else, in fact doesn't do anything. (Except perhaps make its internal processes go slower, but if we're talking about light, there are none.)

    Nobody says there couldn't have been time (or some time-like thing) before the BB; we don't know.

    Not necessarily true for the mathematical usage of the term.

    Membranes typically have a non-zero thickness and a physical presence, and that's a bigger problem in my opinion that there is with the term "surface".

    There can also be two membrane in exactly the same way, so I don't see how this is a difference between the two terms?

    I understand what we are talking about, yes.

    A surface can have two sides, so I don't understand what you are trying to say here?

    This still doesn't address the fact that the surface/membrane's definition seems to violate SR.
  19. nebel Valued Senior Member

    two membranes would have 4 surfaces, a good insulator (if reflective) , we could use in the cold in most of the continental US. A leaf in a book has 2 pages, or sides to it, two surfaces. but that aside,
    you always speak of the violation of the good established theories, by the expanding sphere through infinite time. Back up these claims with details why, how this is so, please.
    Of course if spacetime without prior or negative existence of its components is the absolute bedrock basis of a given theory, A picture of them coming into existence only in sequence would not fit, but still could describe the same condition once the 4 dimensions are united, as they are in the" now "we experience.
  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    I think you mean "sides", not "surfaces".

    Some surfaces indeed only have one side. So let's use the word "plane" then?

    I have already done that; see the link talking about the simultaneity of events in post #160. You define your "membrane" as all events that happen at the same time, but that's meaningless without specifying for which frame of reference you're doing that. This membrane cannot globally be well-defined (in SR or GR).

    It's not for GR, and it isn't for mainstream cosmology either.

    The "once the 4 dimensions are united" is something you assert happened, but for which you have yet to provide any evidence. On top of that, as I've already pointed out, it's not clear how something like that can work if we use the words space and time in the way modern science does.
  21. nebel Valued Senior Member

    The word plane carries with it the Euclidean concept of flatness, 180 deg triangles, and the compound curvature of an expanding sphere does not fit that well. Yes the word side and surfaces could be used interchangeably, like two sides of a coin, as long as we understand that the thickness is zero like the length of the "now".
    I was looking for explaining to me , why this is so. The shape of the membrane to my is defined locally by the radius it has travelled at any given time since the origin, when spacetime appeared. That would be a view that is independent of "c". which isolates the local observer, to looking along inside the membrane now. I do not see. why an infinite time, that preceded space, would affect the outworkings of Gr and SR now. but if that does, I would I would like to hear the details.
    Why would conditions that are placed in the time before our beginning and into the future after our arrival there affect the outworkings of our laws, theories now?
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2018
  22. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Hyperplane then?

    I don't understand what you are trying to say, but let me link an example of why such a membrane is ill-defined. It's already on that wiki-page:
    The dots A, B, and C are events; specific moments in time when something happens. The question is: do they happen at the same time, or at different times? As you can see, the axis change. This happens because when an observer is moving at high speeds, special relativity kicks in, and so-called Lorentz transformations happen (note: these have been experimentally proven to happen). So when the velocity of the observer (the "v" at the bottom) changes, the axis change. And when the axis change, the line representing "all events happening at t=100s" tilts. So one observer will say that A, B, and C all happened at the same time (v=0 in this example), but a moving observer will say C happened first, while an observer moving in the opposite direction will say A happened first.

    This means that defining a "membrane" as "all spacetime points on it happened at the same time" has a problem: at the same time according to what observer? This membrane therefore cannot be globally valid; it will differ per observer. Which makes it quite useless as a concept when trying to interpret the most global thing of all: the entire universe.

    If there is no causal link between pre-BB and now, we cannot know anything about what happened before the BB. The knowledge of pre-BB things constitutes as a causal influence. In fact, at that point we can simply apply Occam's Razor and completely forget about anything pre-BB, because it's unnecessary.

    And it's you that's claiming that there is a pre-BB time in the first place, so why are you asking me that question?
  23. nebel Valued Senior Member

    The idea of a pre- big bang time is not mine. sorry, the question is not about that period in infinite time. Where I need help is to understand, why the possibility of causality pushed back further into the past, beyond our origin, affects the outcome in our universe now, negating all the heavy lifting that was done by the current teachers, that stood on shoulders of giants?

Share This Page