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

[nebel]

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.

That is a hope of many. The Original Post opened a discussion on a simpler question, lookback time. time period. Can we assume from that, , that to have a universe appear from nothing, there had at least to have been time, and if time was before the beginning, than that still has to exist today? and if so, it must lie in the direction of the future, which we still move into.
The devil is of course in the details, or his adversary ( a story that has captivated, held captive billions), but it is gratifying to think to live in a workshop with a great future, infinite even. and a great past ditto. Energy enough to form the universe, keep it going, even accelerating (pedal to the metal).
I am just happy to see myself in an expanding universe slim too, membrane -like made up of material that moved the distance since the (big) beginning.
Welcoming every inference we can make from our experience to the condition before it began. Leaving to each's imagination how to fill that void. sanely.

 

[nebel]

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.

Why was it not enough to accept that it came from the same origin, so had to have the same approximate characteristics? The apple falls not far from the tree?

The Expanding Sphere does not deal with the sameness problem, it does not have to. It is the same sphere of matter that has travelled the same distance through time. Even it shows only 1/4 are visible to us, It is not evident that the 3/4 beyond the horizon are different to what we see, in our neck of the woods. would we?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I think that can be said with some confidence.

I still think to suggest even this you are well down the road of speculation.
And to then say we can be confident in our speculation seems to me to lay the ground for a predetermined outcome.
When we expect things to be so we tend to form an opinion that as time passes and information comes to hand we will try and fit stuff into the idea we had..moroscopic I think is the term..I must refresh my memory..but I think that is the appropriate term...I will have to confirm however.

Now I am not singling you out here but to point to a condition that seems to be present in all cosmology.

My point about the big bang is that we have the catholic church smitten with the cosmic egg idea and then we have the big bang evole in that environment.

That is my objection not so much to the big bang but in the hurry to offer inflation as a saviour for the potential demise of the big bang theory.
Another worry is the prediction of lithium..it was supposed to be there and aboundant in fact but well its not there after all...so next we have a theroy showing it was there but due to a certain process now it is not...does this suggest a determination to keep this cosmology in place or is it just part of the process ..fixing stuff as we go along...

I think most folk dont want to get involved in a discussion of these matters because they think they go agains t science whereas I say not to investigate concerns like I present is the opposite of science perhaps...but there is the case for dismissing my thoughts as not even wrong and that is the problem for a layman trying to understand cosmology.


Now if events went this way... an observation is made that identifies the cosmic background radiation and an observation is made that identifies the universe is expanding and then...and only then a hypothisis is presented and then using the observations the theory is constructed that seems the wat it should run...It seems to me the big bang did not follow what I would consider a proper course.

Step one seems to be a priest discussing with other priests the idea of a cosmic egg and the cosmology followed from there.

I think at the time the idea was not received well because of the approach that I suggest was thought to be at play by some scientists of the time.

The very title of the big bang was a throw away line descibing the idea.

I am just curious if you have studied this aspect of the development of the idea.

Why should it be relevant now?


Well it seems that there was a determination to offer this cosmology to fit an idea not to fit original observations, which is dangerous initself, but when the theory was threatened to be thrown out this determination to save it manifested in the presentation of the theory of inflation...Standing on the outside trying to follow all this from the start I just think it seems somewhat reasonable to draw the conclusions as I outline...I am curious if anyone has had similar thoughts...and the reason is really a question as to the merit of the theory of inflation.

How could the universe manifest in an instant...how can anyone accept such is possible.


I am a simple man but that not that simple that I can accept that all I know that is out there could have appeared effectively in an instant and that is what inflation asks us to accept..personally its not that I wont accept it is that I simply can not accept such could happen...as I said if the time frame is equivalant to zillions of our years that is a different matter but clearly the way the idea is presented certainly does not say that.

I have not read much of Bohm as he struck me as more a phillosopher and I was never driven to read him.

But if he is a phillosopher first or even second frankly I do not think he can play a meaningful role in cosmology and if he has perhaps that could be part of the problem..certainly it is my feeling that given the then catholic churches love affair with the cosmic egg concept you can tell I do not want philosophy anywhere close to science.

And I like Dr AEs version ..I believe he was the scientist that had cosmology correct. I think it is unfortunate that his equations have been turned to support a creation proposition...He was a great man and I think his approach may not suit those in the world who want a creation point and he could not stand against them...its not just science that goes on...For me I will always prefer his version and that is probably because I admire him so much ... he did not like black holes and yet his equations are used to create them...why did we need black holes...well that makes accepting the cosmic egg easier...in my view.

I think the catholics used our work (Dr AE and others) to build their cosmology and now we are the brains supporting their cosmology.

But maybe my expectationsand observations are not the way it is..I suppose the question really is...Does cosmology follow science or does science follow cosmology...the theory of inflation suggests to me that the science follows the cosmology... what do you think or is this subject and my approach to hot to handle?.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Why was it not enough to accept that it came from the same origin, so had to have the same approximate characteristics?

I do not know.
Maybe to make us arrive at a creation point.
I cant see why the problem was taken to be a problem and I can not see why only inflation could solve it.

I am curious you seem to know how much we cant see...certainly there is the observable universe but how do you know what portion is not observable?

Alex

 

[Write4U]

My point about the big bang is that we have the catholic church smitten with the cosmic egg idea and then we have the big bang evole in that environment.

I am an atheist, so anything religious does not affect my thinking in any way.

Acccording to Genesis, god's egg took 6 days? Now who is mixing disciplines?
Don't question me, question the bible as a rational scientific instrument.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I am an atheist, so anything religious does not affect my thinking in any way.

Acccording to Genesis, god's egg took 6 days? Now who is mixing disciplines?
Don't question me, question the bible as a rational scientific instrument.

I only question you because you seem to have a decent grasp of many things and well I respect your opinions.
alex

 

[nebel]

Acccording to Genesis, god's egg took 6 days? Now who is mixing disciplines?
Don't question me, question the bible as a rational scientific instrument.

please do not mention the bible here.

The thread has gone right now to 11 666 views. true believers are allergic to that number, they will break out in hives.
really, we would be talking about genesis one and one, not one on one, and The bible is refuted right there. because
The Earth was not made in the beginning, 13.8 billion years ago, but make that only ~ 5 billion. The bible writers off by 300%.
The Scriptures mention the 4 corners of the Earth though, and it so happens that in the Expanding Sphere membrane, there are 4 caps that would cover the viewing horizons, and there are 4 corners that are not covered by those caps. see post 553, 554. corny models.

 

[Write4U]

please do not mention the bible here.

The thread has gone right now to 11 666 views. true believers are allergic to that number, they will break out in hives.
really, we would be talking about genesis one and one, not one on one, and The bible is refuted right there. because
the Earth was not made in the beginning, 13.8 billion years ago, but make that ~ 5 billion. The bible writers off by 300%.
The Scriptures mention the 4 corners of the Earth though, and it so happens that in the Expanding Sphere membrane, there are 4 caps that would cover the viewing horizon, and there are 4 corners that are not covered by those caps. see post 553, 554. corny models.

I agree, and I did not introduce the subject. I did respond with a clarification of my perspective on religion.

 

[nebel]

I am curious you seem to know how much we cant see...certainly there is the observable universe but how do you know what portion is not observable?

The model that emerged from all these discussions for me, shows that. how?
The membrane of all the matter that has moved through time since the beginning lies now in the surface of the hollow sphere, has moved out of the past. The radius of that sphere is now 13.8 billion light years. That is how far you can see, because before that there was nothing but time, and whatever that nothing es comprised of. But
Our viewing is not back to the empty center, but along the membrane full of matter, having a panoramic view like true flatlanders. Even there we could only see what came from 13.8 billion years ago. So now please
get an old fashioned divider or caliper, and mark of a circle, and the 6 division in the circumference, see post # 447 pge 23. From point A you can see to points B & F. That is only 1/3 of what the whole circle of encircling matter comprises. On a 2 Dimensional, curved sphere it is even worse, there that cap with a diameter of 2 Radii, covers only 1/4 of the total membrane. see post# 560 the double cap. so,
most of the denizen of the universe could not see us, we are beyond their horizon and vise versa.
If we are the only way for the universe to know itself, we have a long way to go, to 3 more radii, ~ 40 billion light years, as of today's measurements. so
The model says, we are not the center, were once in the BB, but now only 1/4 is visible for us, the rest now is stretched beyond the horizon, out of our sight. Could geometry, Euclid, Pythagoras be wrong ?
PS. (not BS):
If we could look beyond the 13.8 billion light years horizon, we would not look into the BB or beyond that point in time, but see the CBMR , more of it and the other parts of the universe that stretched away from us, we would not be able to peer into the timespace prior to the BB.

 

[Write4U]

I still think to suggest even this you are well down the road of speculation.
And to then say we can be confident in our speculation seems to me to lay the ground for a predetermined outcome.
When we expect things to be so we tend to form an opinion that as time passes and information comes to hand we will try and fit stuff into the idea we had..moroscopic I think is the term..I must refresh my memory..but I think that is the appropriate term...I will have to confirm however.

Are you suggesting science is a complete waste of time, based on preconceived expectations? I should hope not.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The radius of that sphere is now 13.8 billion light years. That is how far you can see, because before that there was nothing but time, and whatever that nothing es comprised of.

Thank you for trying to help me understand.

I thought the observable universe was something in the order of approx 100 billion light years in diameter.

The model that emerged from all these discussions for me, shows that.

Sorry I thought that is what you were saying.

Could geometry, Euclid, Pythagoras be wrong ?

I doubt it.

I never said we were the center and I dont think of it that way.

My question was driven by you referencing fractions we could see or not see.

I am not clear what you consider to be the observable universe..it seems you say something with a radius of approximately 13.5 billion light years...it is my impression the observable universe is some 100 billion light years diameter. ..
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Are you suggesting science is a complete waste of time, based on preconceived expectations? I should hope not.

No absolutely not as to waste of time.

I outlined my concerns which are that perhaps the cosmology came first and then the science.

Is that unreasonable in the context of the churches preoccupation of the cosmic egg concept at or about the time George Lemaitre first proposed the big bang.

Anyways I really did not wish to do more than read in this thread and it was only that nebel quoted something I said very early on that caused me to comment.
It seemed like he was trying to keep the thread going so I tried to help but presenting something very contraversial that would keep it running.

There is little I can contributr and as I said I would rather follow than contribute.

Alex

 

[nebel]

thought the observable universe was something in the order of approx 100 billion light years in diameter.

I had an open mind on that too, that is why asked the naive question in the o.p. but think about it.
How could the observable universe be 100 billion light years in extension, if we know the BB is only 13.8 bly away in all directions we look.? we can observe the beginning of the expansion is only that far into the past?

I never said we were the center and I dont think of it that way.
My question was driven by you referencing fractions we could see or not see.
I am not clear what you consider to be the observable universe..it seems you say something with a radius of approximately 13.5 billion light years...

Sorry, it was my idea to introduce the idea that we appear to be the center of the Universe, the inhabitants of the original Big beginning location even.-- because we are, and so is everybody else. The trouble is, it only looks that way, the way it looked with the sun moving across or fixed earth too, in the pre- Copernican world view.
To get that 13.8 BLY. in perspective, please follow the posts above.
In the ESM model, our observable universe looks like an umbrella, with the handle stick as the radius, the tip as the observer, and the curved fabric shield as the observation field, the rim as the horizon, 4 such umbrellas could form a sphere, all handles tied in the center.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I had an open mind on that too, that is why asked the naive question in the o.p. but think about it.
How could the observable universe be 100 billion light years in extension, if we know the BB is only 13.8 bly away in all directions we look.? we can observe the beginning of the expansion is only that far into the past?

I copied this from wiki.

According to calculations, the current comoving distance – proper distance, which takes into account that universe has expanded since the light was emitted – to particles from which the CMBR was emitted, which represent the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years), while the comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light years),[12] about 2% larger. The radius of the observable universe is therefore estimated to be about 46.5 billion light-years[13][14] and its diameter about 28.5 gigaparsecs (93 billion light-years, 8.8×1023 kilometres or 5.5×1023 miles).[15] The total mass of ordinary matter in the universe can be calculated using the critical density and the diameter of the observable universe to be about 1.5×1053 kg.[1

How do you get around that.
alex

 

[Write4U]

In the ESM model, our observable universe looks like an umbrella, with the handle stick as the radius, the tip as the observer, and the curved fabric shield as the observation field, the rim as the horizon, 4 such umbrellas could form a sphere, all handles tied in the center.

I like your analogy of joint icosahedrons.

Plato liked the decahedron. It has the added feature of inverted mirror functions, which allows for the same view from opposite sides, but from an inverted perspective.

 

[nebel]

This would show the progression through time and the membrane of a an object in proper motion. or the advancement of a photon emitted.

Attached Files:

• 
  a" style="margin: 0px; padding: 10px 10px 0px; overflow: hidden; zoom: 1; background: url("styles/default/xenforo/gradients/category-23px-light.png") center top repeat-x rgb(240, 247, 252); border-radius: 5px;">
• 
  upload_2018-1-21_17-35-59.png
  File size:
  44.6 KB
  

• How do you get around that.

  
  
  
• my radius and cap of 2 x radius diameter horizon is based on a minimal, no proper motion straight out movement through time. The above post,#379 page 19 shows the path that a photon might take in its travel in the expanding membrane, Of course that would give a traveltime of ~ 93 billion light years, and that is the the total of the membranes circumference. 87 BLYs, in the simple ESM model. close.
• imho, we see only 13,8 back in time, not ~90 BLYs. Some of the guestimates of the universe are 250 times the size of what we see. The simple geometry says we see 1/4.
• The spiral path above could stretch to equal the present circumference, but in the model, the whole universe is not in the spiral path any more, , but in the fully expanded membrane, equidistant everywhere from the BB.
• The hex on flat paper shows that 2/3 is hidden,
• The 4 caps on the surface show that 3/4 is hidden
• If you went to volume more would be hidden.
• Volume is a difficult model, because the BB as a point in time would assume to be the role of a prime location, small, when in reality it is big, everywhere. so, I am sticking with an empty, not full sphere, an empty past, not one full of ghostly past images of our smaller past energy/matter selves.
• thank you for that good question.
• Post Script: The spiral above gives a long lookback time, but that is neither the size nor the horizon of the observable universe. the size would be the shortest geometrically measurable distances, radii, circumference, not the path of a photon. imho.

 

[nebel]

I like your analogy of joint icosahedrons.

thank you, the pictures I posted shows them curvier, with equal radius, throughout.
The whole thing looking like Soldiers huddled together under their joining shields.

 

[nebel]

just a note: Stephen Hawking called time the 4st dimension, the time before the Big Bang " imaginary time", nebel called it a month ago timespace. imagine. To be precise:
The term timespace was coined on Jan. 16 2028 recorded on posts #353; # 354, # 357 page 18 of the ALMA thread.

https://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-tells-degrasse-tyson-what-preceded-big-bang/

 

[nebel]

re: Prof. S. Hawking's imaginary time:
I was posting, not boasting.
There were many objections on this thread, to the effect that considering time before the Big Beginning***, was not a theme in mainstream science. this news item and the previous post of Paul Dirac's work show the contrary. It is a worthwhile discussion, all 11700 views of it. thank you.
*** by extension also in the future time of the universe.

 

[Write4U]

re: Prof. S. Hawking's imaginary time:
I was posting, not boasting.
There were many objections on this thread, to the effect that considering time before the Big Beginning***, was not a theme in mainstream science. this news item and the previous post of Paul Dirac's work show the contrary. It is a worthwhile discussion, all 11700 views of it. thank you.
*** by extension also in the future time of the universe.

First, I thoroughly enjoy our exchanges... (and thank you for the link)

However, as I read the article and quotes; Hawking offered a simple and direct answer.
"Nothing was around before the Big, Big Bang," Hawking said.

Then the commentary: "For Hawking, therefore, the beginning of the universe is best described by a Euclidean approach", which does not clarify the original statement.

and later: "For Hawking, however, imaginary time "behaves like a fourth direction of space." He and Euclid believe imaginary time is a "four-dimensional curved surface like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions.", which IMO, still sheds no light on Hawking's original statement that nothing was around before the BB.

Clearly he is already talking about "spacetime" whereas previously he stated that nothing preceded the BB. Nowhere is "timespace" mentioned.
But I certainly admire your introduction of the word into the conversation. I thought about it for a considerable time.

Alas, IMO, without "something being around", time does indeed become wholly imaginary, IOW, non-existent....

"Ordinary real time is replaced by imaginary time," Hawking said. "Honestly, that happens to me all the time. I imagine time has gone by at a certain pace, only to discover I've been imagining things."

Can there be such a thing as a non-existence having "imagination" without being sentient?
It's a subjective statement.