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

[nebel]

Disagree , not time . Space

Energy and matter and Life need space . To exist

When The BBC article mentioned " Block Time" (must be in previous posts) it implied that time in the pre-BB era had a quasi spatial quality about it, like a block. It is certainly in the sketch here, where Time #1 is thought of to permeate in all direction, or in the "sausage" universe version, in the beginning of the thread. Post #3 by Write4U, that casing was encased from all sides in time. so: think of timespace. and
of course any space can not exist without having time. Our time was called by A. Einstein spacetime, it definitely is also mattertime.

 

[river]

When The BBC article mentioned " Block Time" (must be in previous posts) it implied that time in the pre-BB era had a quasi spatial quality about it, like a block. It is certainly in the sketch here, where Time #1 is thought of to permeate in all direction, or in the "sausage" universe version, in the beginning of the thread. Post #3 by Write4U, that casing was encased from all sides in time. so: think of timespace. and
of course any space can not exist without having time. Our time was called by A. Einstein spacetime, it definitely is also mattertime.

So a block time was three dimensional more so than a three dimensional sphere .

The problem with the " block " , is that energy is confined . In all three dimensions .Therefore has limited ability to flow . Hence the energy decreases . Because the energy has straight lines.

A sphere , three dimensionally , of energy , has flow because it has curvature .

 

[nebel]

So a block time was three dimensional more so than a three dimensional sphere .

Sorry, could not find the link, but the reference was to time being not just a one way, one dimensional flow. rather a static all pervasive presence.

A sphere , three dimensionally , of energy , has flow because it has curvature .

In the model here, all activity, even propagation of photon happens in the curved sphere membrane #3, so, while the sight seems straight, it is really curving out of the smaller past universe. and of course going off at a tangent to remain in the universe advancing through time.
we send messages into the future, but receive them from the past. all in the advancing curvature of time. thank you.

 

[river]

↑

So a block time was three dimensional more so than a three dimensional sphere .

Sorry, could not find the link, but the reference was to time being not just a one way, one dimensional flow. rather a static all pervasive presence.

One dimension has no existence , it , time , will never have any flow .

 

[nebel]

One dimension has no existence , it , time , will never have any flow .

Exactly! it is we , the universes matter #3 that is moving through time! # 1. I was referring to the one way street time view expounded somewhere else.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
One dimension has no existence , it , time , will never have any flow .

Exactly! it is we , the universes matter #3 that is moving through time! # 1. I was referring to the one way street time view expounded somewhere else.

It seems it is tough to think of time as irrelevant to any things , existence .

But it is true .

We tend to think of Universe in terms Mathematics , rather than thinking of the Universe as three dimensional physical objects .

 

[nebel]

We tend to think of Universe in terms Mathematics , rather than thinking of the Universe as three dimensional physical objects

One of the first confusing experiences I had in the 193o, besides the Zeppelins overhead was traveling to our summer vacation in an express Steam train, the Locomotive, build for speed, had very little initial torque. Looking out the window you could not tell whether the rail road station was leaving or us.
It is tempting to think geocentrically, egocentrically and imaging us at rest, and time (which for all we know) has no substance, to be moving on.
I do not trust the concept of us being so important and fixed.
As we as a species, , over time awoke scientifically, it was always us that were discovered to be on the move, not the Earth, not the Sun, not our Milky Way galaxy. So, in that progression, There is this, bigger realm, with infinitely old energy, that we started moving through 13.8 billion years ago. Us, proven to be, not stationary, but the ones moving again. moving through time.
Hoping that the model of expansion out from the BB point in time #4 is helpful.

We tend to think of Universe in terms Mathematics

My most comfortable branch of Math is geometry, modelling., drawing conclusion where it will lead.

 

[nebel]

We tend to think of Universe in terms Mathematics , rather than thinking of the Universe as three dimensional physical objects .

Hard to say how different humans think of the universe.
seeing is believing, and light, the message we perceive mostly about the universe is important. Light, the message about the universe is carried to us from from the past. That physical object we see there , does not exist there any more, not just in it's place, but it's time, and it is changed too. has moved away from the position we see it to be in.
so the distance of time moved through, is always there, in nature's reality, but not subject to our thoughts.

The enigma in this model is the nature of light, with it's no aging feature. traveling through space but not through time, like a diplomatic entity, extraterritorial. immune to local laws.
hard to integrate into a model that has all the universal matter move through time, but not the prime carrier of information. energy in wave/particle duality, mass-less form.

 

[nebel]

In the absence of change, there is absence of time.

Looking at the many moons last night, Our full Moon and Jupiter's 4,-- my thought combined this and the "Orbital velocity and rotational velocity cancel" threads.
What happens to time in such a conjunction, when the Sun. the Earth, the Moon, Jupiter's equator, and one Moon like Europa, have prograde and apparent retrograde velocities that nearly annul each other? When they are quasi temporally unchanged in position with respect to the Sun, stars?
At zero speed does time become zero or infinite?

 

[Write4U]

When they are quasi temporally unchanged in position with respect to the Sun, stars?
At zero speed does time become zero or infinite?

No such thing as absence of change or zero speed (statis). This is a matter of spacetime coordinates and no thing can remain in the same spacetime coordinate but for a single instant, before it is replaced by a new thing in the chronology.

 

[nebel]

No such thing as absence of change or zero speed (statis)

Of course, you are right, in the great scheme of things, everything is always moving in respect to something else. But to isolate the forward movement of Jupiter against the backward movement of Europa at perihelion (viewed against the stars) gives a macro approximation of stalled movement through space. The opposite of photons doing "c".
( think too of the part of the train that always seems to go backward whenever the whole moves over the rail)
In the model of an inflating spherical membrane moving out ward through time from the BB here, (or the model of a circular wave expanding from a thrown Pebble),-- such motionless interior situations would have them at the forefront of advance, contrasting with the laggards, the black holes stuck in time.

 

[nebel]

View attachment 1826



This being about the funnel picture reaching back toward, not into the Big Bang point in time. The membrane, and the picture, even if repurposed, shows a good partial representation of of the membrane. The total membrane would curve all the way around the bottom, 360 degrees, all BH funnels pointing toward the BB. central point in time.
The membrane is not isotemporal, so that all clocks show the same time since the BB, but, all points on it show the distance they have moved through time since the BB. Time travel for the Black Hole was cut short, when gravity made it to stop on the radius. ( Movement through Time stops in max gravity). The picture shown is incomplete, it does not show the end of the radius, all the way BB of course, way short. In the above illustration to the point [in time] of the original singularity.(quote from text above) where it got stuck on the radius.
Above illustration copy/pasted, repurposed for the ESM model. (credit where credit is due) The ESM model holds, even in relativity representation.

Thinking again, how a black hole would show on the the expanding membrane model, it appears that since at the center of all entities there is no effective gravity, even at the center of a black hole, and as seen in origin's graph, the membrane would not be not torn, because the center is in line with the sphere's surface advancing through time. but
that neutral peak would be surrounded by a deep trough. or
The situation, of space under stress around a black hole, is best pictured by space having stretched so taut, that is does not curve through time at all. (still advancing with the total universe though)

 

[nebel]

"--Time’s passage is perhaps the most fundamental feature of our experience, and yet modern physics can’t decide if it is a fundamental property of the universe. So what is time, and why it does it flow? How come it seems to slow and surge? And what, if anything, does the time we experience have to do with the time defined by the laws of nature? bold added.
Quoted from New Scientist magazine article by Daniel Cossins "The Time Paradox--" 3 July 2019.

Comment: Time existed before our still evolving brains. As we move through time it can play tricks on us, like thinking that time is moving and we are standing still; egocentric, geocentric as we like to see ourselves naturally.

According to the model proposed here, time #1 never moved, our matter #3 only for the last 13,8 billion years., in all directions away from the Big Bang point in time #2. Still going strong in all directions into the future.

 

[paddoboy]

of course any space can not exist without having time. Our time was called by A. Einstein spacetime, it definitely is also mattertime.

Actually the concept of space time was first introduced by Einstein's teacher, a bloke called Herman Minkowski after Einstein gave the world SR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".

— Hermann Minkowski, 1908, 1909

 

[nebel]

Actually the concept of space time was first introduced by Einstein's teacher, a bloke called Herman Minkowski

thank you paddoboy for that insight. Everybody is encouraged to do research into this, A. Einstein is known to have heavily relied on his fellow workers.
For him, coining or adapting the word "Spacetime " would not have been a big deal, for in some germanic languages, you can string words together to form a unique new concept, pages long if needed. .
That is why in this present model of "matter flowing out from the Big Bang #4 into the future", considers the
pre- Big Bang time as Energytime (devoid of matter) and existing in Timenspace, a realm where 3 dimensional space was not needed to hang matter onto.
Time , like energy being uncreated, infinite in age, through which we are moving into the future.

 

[river]

thank you paddoboy for that insight. Everybody is encouraged to do research into this, A. Einstein is known to have heavily relied on his fellow workers.
For him, coining or adapting the word "Spacetime " would not have been a big deal, for in some germanic languages, you can string words together to form a unique new concept, pages long if needed. .
That is why in this present model of "matter flowing out from the Big Bang #4 into the future", considers the
pre- Big Bang time as Energytime (devoid of matter) and existing in Timenspace, a realm where 3 dimensional space was not needed to hang matter onto.
Time , like energy being uncreated, infinite in age, through which we are moving into the future.

Energytime then is based on what ?

What energy are you referring to ?

 

[paddoboy]

thank you paddoboy for that insight. Everybody is encouraged to do research into this, A. Einstein is known to have heavily relied on his fellow workers.
For him, coining or adapting the word "Spacetime " would not have been a big deal, for in some germanic languages, you can string words together to form a unique new concept, pages long if needed. .
That is why in this present model of "matter flowing out from the Big Bang #4 into the future", considers the
pre- Big Bang time as Energytime (devoid of matter) and existing in Timenspace, a realm where 3 dimensional space was not needed to hang matter onto.
Time , like energy being uncreated, infinite in age, through which we are moving into the future.

No probs. Einstein and SR/GR were certainly not formed by the ideas/principals of just Einstein...many ideas, postulates, and theories from different scientists all contributed to Einstein putting it all together...Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Planck, Minkowski, and probably others that I have forgotten.
It was though the brilliance of Einstein in seeing the connections and putting it all together.
Note, the BB was the evolution of space and time at t+10-43 seconds. No matter at that time, in fact the first atomic nucleus was not formed until 3 minutes later, and the first light elements 380,000 years later.
Matter,energy, spacetime are summed up adequately by Sten Odenwald here.....
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?
No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


A history starting at t=10-43 seconds tells us that at that time all the four known forces were combined into one superforce under the extremes of pressures and temperatures. It wasn't until around 10-35 seconds that pressures and temperatures had dropped sufficiently to enable the superforce to start decoupling, gravity being the first. As this was happening, phase transitions and false vacuums were created and excesses of energy went into creating our first fundamental particles such as quarks and electrons.

From there it was relatively plain sailing.

 

[paddoboy]

My most comfortable branch of Math is geometry, modelling., drawing conclusion where it will lead.

Time is real...Time does not need to be physical to exist and neither does anything else. Your time is different to my time and being connected and interchangable with space, as spacetime, can be bent, warped, twisted or whatever in line and under the auspices of GR. There is no universal now.
The real question concerning time is whether it is fundamental or not...I believe it is, but here is an expert view from Sean Carroll. As Sean says in the first minute of the video, Time is real for many reasons.....

 

[nebel]

Energytime then is based on what ?
What energy are you referring to ?

In the OP, which was about look back time, the photons that arrived, do so now, and will in the future, carry information from events /entities that do not exist any more, That was the extent that we had to deal with energy, only inside the universe.
When going into the realm of time and the nature of the energy before our universe, -- For myself --I leave that question totally open.
The idea of zero sum energy, of positive and negatives balancing out requires 2 "units" of energy, not none. so,
The proposition that there was no energy before our universe, and therefore no time, is not good. "Virtual particles", require time for existence too, so, because energy was needed to make matter, and energy is uncreated, the concept of infinite time as a dimension through which we travel emerged during this discussion.
The idea of a fundamental first dimension of time, through which we move, is comforting for me. imho, Time was before us , before the universe, it is "bigger" than the universe, us, reaches into the future.

 

[nebel]

Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?
No.

That why in this alternate theory of time as the first dimension through which we move is based the link between time and energy, both uncreated indestructible fundamental, infinitely old.
Because of this great extend of time, it can be assumed that there exits a kind of ur-space, timespace, part of which switched tipped to spacetime at the BB.

A history starting at t=10-43 seconds tells us that at that time all the four known forces were combined

Thank you for the details of the cascade of events during the Big Beginning(bang). Yes, Some Energy had started then , locally, at that point in time, 13.8 billion years ago,-on it's journey into the future, in the form of matter. That is why our period should be also called mattertime not just spacetime. kudos to the scientist that can identify such small increments of movement through time, and the changes that occurred on that journey.

question: time is whether it is fundamental or not...I believe it is,

Thank you. I have his Book: "from eternity to here" right on my table.
recommended reading. key word: eternity., not started at the beginning, the BB.