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

[nebel]

What energy are you referring to ?

I am referring to the reservoir of energy that must have preceded and partially, locally used in the Big Bang, and that is till out there stretching into the infinite future . that lies before us.
Speculation is, that the universe is accelerating, using more energy than from the impetus at the beginning, and the term "dark energy" has been coined to name it.
This theory opens the possibility, that the universe, as it expands into time #1, energytime, timespace, is constantly absorbing more of that resident energy, which might be what call "dark."

 

[river]

I am referring to the reservoir of energy that must have preceded and partially, locally used in the Big Bang, and that is till out there stretching into the infinite future . that lies before us.

Really nebel ?

Where and why is there this reservoir of energy ?

 

[nebel]

Really nebel ?

Where and why is there this reservoir of energy ?

River, remember, the question of energy rises only now, as an adjunct to infinitely old/great extending time through which the universe expands.
why?
The idea, that energy, with time that it needs to exist, extending through such a distance from the infinite past to the infinite future ( yes, time and energy is already there, while we are still on the way), There would ten be have a great deal of potential energy, and liberateded/ convert where it to come, like a fall, to one point somewhere in between,-- as it possibly did, in the BB. . The present alternative theory postulates this to have happened at point in time #4, 13.8 billion years ago, as measured on the radius of the expanding universe membrane.
That would leave still other external points in time to benefit in such a way, as the far fetched theory of other bubble- or baby universes assumes, and importantly

leave still energy in the time dimension #1, into which we move, us, being part of the universe #3 .
We have to assume that here is such a energy reservoir or content of time, because it can not be created, or destroyed, and it took energy for the appearance of matter/ space and it's initial expansion .
Where is this [ur] time and [ur]energy?
energytime? timespace?, according to the model , as a first dimension #1: it is
before, therefore outside our universe (which is itself represented by the zero thickness expanding membrane#3) and
energytime, timespace is also
in the infinite future, ahead of us, therefore still outside our universe. (before us in the sense of a destination, because we moving in that direction).
That seems to be really so, if you wirk it out.

 

[nebel]

Does that answer your question?

http://earthsky.org/space/is-our-universe-ringing-like-a-crystal-glass

Write 4 you: you showed a sausage shaped universe here, or should i say shaped like certain prophylactic enhanced sensation devices?
Why is the "inflating sphere membrane expanding through time in all direction model "perhaps superior ?
A universe, even a model like your link, that, going off to one direction, even into time, would require an entity, or mass to brace, to react against. But
Looking at the BB as a central point from which matter spread through time in all directions, frees us form the concept of an un movable mover, (or a mover that is moved by the appearance of the universe's matter).
The new matter of the early universe moved against, - away -rom each other, even in it's travel through the first dimension, time.

 

[Write4U]

matter spread through time in all directions

I have a problem with that assumption.
Suppose it was not omnidirectional, but unidirectional in time in a single temporal forward direction?

In the illustration the present is a 2 dimensional slice (plane) across the 13.7 old expanding and contracting universe. Hence the 6 expansions and contractions in the lifetime of the universe. Count them. We are currently in an expansion upslope.

IMO, this mathematically a very plausible model. Hence the the title "The Ringing Universe".

This is fundamentally what David Bohm proposed and keeps constantly garnering renewed interest in the deterministic "Pilot Wave" model of the universe.

 

[nebel]

In the illustration the present is a 2 dimensional slice (plane) across the 13.7 old expanding and contracting universe. Hence the 6 expansions and contractions in the lifetime of the universe. Count them. We are currently in an expansion upslope.

In the contrasting model of a sphere expanding into time, such variation in expansion would be shown pictured in different "densities" of the nestled smaller universes of the past. stacked Russian Egg Doll style, but really not existing any more, as the universe has truly left the past behind, only messages from the past still received.
The expanding sphere could be easily considered as a 3D wave moving out, as it is in 2D in the " ---Universe rolling through time" thread. A stack of pictures of that model would give the envelope of the "sausage-like model.

Both models assume that there is a "space" available that the universe is expanding into, could be pictured from.
Assuming that time cam be traversed in any direction ( even the sausage can be seen as tilted any which way) makes for better symmetry.
Expansion in all directions, wave or not, and the self-bracing start makes for a simple model, eliminating the need for an counterweight or unmovable mover. A reaction- free beginning BB.
in every way.
How are the 6 fluctuations in the expansion rate detected from the radiation that still reaches us form the past? asking,
because with all messages coming along inside the expandimg membrane that would show the same way. making the models agree.

 

[Write4U]

Both models assume that there is a "space" available that the universe is expanding into, could be pictured from.

I'm not so sure about that there is space into which the universe is expanding. That's a false model, IMO.

There is a permittive condition (nothing, permittive of everything) which allows for universal expansion, but that does not translate in a pre-existing space.

And I used to think of a singularity expanding in all dimensions, but I am beginning to suspect that universal expansion is unidirectional (in the direction of time) not omnidirectional, which might immediately present time paradoxes.

Any thoughts?

 

[nebel]

I'm not so sure about that there is space into which the universe is expanding.

well, of course the space it is going into is different than the inside we live in. it is not surveyed, has no horizon of 13.8 billion years in time, but it appears to have the energy that allowed the beginning of our mattertime in the point of time when this universe started.

There is a permittive condition (nothing, permittive of everything) which allows for universal expansion, but that does not translate in a pre-existing space

Even a condition needs time to exist in, and that time was and is outside our universe. in a kind of timespace. (possibly full of dark energy) so: energytime.

universal expansion is unidirectional (in the direction of time) not omnidirectional, which might immediately present time paradoxes.

Yes, the universal expansion is into the future, has been so since the "Big Bang" But the Big bang was not like a canon shot going off in one direction, but went in all directions, (that is why the background radiation comes from all directions).
According to the expanding sphere model, some matter is now~ 42 billion years distant and receding fast.
What time paradox results from expansion in all directions, even into time please ?

 

[river]

River, remember, the question of energy rises only now, as an adjunct to infinitely old/great extending time through which the universe expands.
why?
The idea, that energy, with time that it needs to exist, extending through such a distance from the infinite past to the infinite future ( yes, time and energy is already there, while we are still on the way), There would ten be have a great deal of potential energy, and liberateded/ convert where it to come, like a fall, to one point somewhere in between,-- as it possibly did, in the BB. . The present alternative theory postulates this to have happened at point in time #4, 13.8 billion years ago, as measured on the radius of the expanding universe membrane.
That would leave still other external points in time to benefit in such a way, as the far fetched theory of other bubble- or baby universes assumes, and importantly

leave still energy in the time dimension #1, into which we move, us, being part of the universe #3 .
We have to assume that here is such a energy reservoir or content of time, because it can not be created, or destroyed, and it took energy for the appearance of matter/ space and it's initial expansion .
Where is this [ur] time and [ur]energy?
energytime? timespace?, according to the model , as a first dimension #1: it is
before, therefore outside our universe (which is itself represented by the zero thickness expanding membrane#3) and
energytime, timespace is also
in the infinite future, ahead of us, therefore still outside our universe. (before us in the sense of a destination, because we moving in that direction).
That seems to be really so, if you wirk it out.

Nebel

Why does energy need time ?

 

[nebel]

universal expansion is unidirectional (in the direction of time) not omnidirectional, which might immediately present time paradoxes.

Write4U: agreed, all models at some level of detail, ramifications will fail. but here is one of your asked - for paradoxes, A replay of the "twin paradox"
Two twins, Alma and Almanda both were born in the Big Bang. started in the point #4 of infinite time #1 : using this sketch from page# 40 post #800:

Alma travelled through time#1, along path #4 -#5 inside the universal membrane #3, shown shown smaller at @8. to her present abode at #5 .
Almanda, because of asymmetry during delivery, ended up on the opposite path, going from Birthplace #4 through 13.8 years of life, from #4 to location*10 at the opposite side, bottom of the universe. Both girls have both gone through 13.8 billion years, separated in time by ~ 28 billion years, yet to reach each other, inside spacetime, inside the membrane #3, full of matter that matters to us, 3.14x13,8 billion years (lightyears distance at "c") have to be traversed.
They can not even see each other, their horizon is defined by ( the background radiation including that of their birth) coming only from where the arcs #9 intersects the membrane #3.
The paradox in the model: it takes now, 3.14 longer to see your twin than they are alive.
"Never the twain shall meet"
There are more profound issues though.
Here is how the BB twins would fare in the other, the sausage, or stacked plate model:
Born together at the center of the first disk at the BB, the twins (through inflation) could find themselves quickly at opposite extremes the edge of the disk, seeing instead of a full " 2D panorama" at #5 and #10 in the sphere, instead-
a half blank field of vision, with a half void, into which they can not even progress into time.

Soon entering my 90 st year, time for me obviously becomes more important than anything else. ha ha.

 

[river]

Again , nebel

Why does energy need time ?

 

[nebel]

Why does energy need time ?

river , sorry to have passed over (in time sequence).
In my world view, ( a loaded question in school in the 1930 to weed out dissenting families), --time is the fundamental first dimension.
Any entity, occurrence, present, condition, automatically falls into that domain. It could not exist outside time, being or becoming part of the existing order.
Energy as a proven uncreated, indestructible entity or condition would have prime place in such a fundamental domain. but
even if you took the measuring tape idea, that everything carries a life/world -line with it since inception, energy being infinitely old, would have that concept too, in this case, could not escape it. but,
Does energy need time?
Yes I think so, without it, it would not be here, or have been ready to be used in the Big Bang.
We desperately need time to move into, I do anyway. I and we are just another more solid form of energy.
We do not own time, living in the now that has no size, but the movement into future time #1 is our lot in life, existence.
Time is the red carpet that is laid out, even for energy pure and simple. Ur-energy.

 

[river]

river , sorry to have passed over (in time sequence).
In my world view, ( a loaded question in school in the 1930 to weed out dissenting families), --time is the fundamental first dimension.
Any entity, occurrence, present, condition, automatically falls into that domain. It could not exist outside time, being or becoming part of the existing order.
Energy as a proven uncreated, indestructible entity or condition would have prime place in such a fundamental domain. but
even if you took the measuring tape idea, that everything carries a life/world -line with it since inception, energy being infinitely old, would have that concept too, in this case, could not escape it. but,
Does energy need time?
Yes I think so, without it, it would not be here, or have been ready to be used in the Big Bang.
We desperately need time to move into, I do anyway. I and we are just another more solid form of energy.
We do not own time, living in the now that has no size, but the movement into future time #1 is our lot in life.
Time is the red carpet that is laid out, even for energy pure and simple. Ur-energy.

Why does energy need time ? Nebel ?

You havn't answered my question .

 

[nebel]

You havn't answered my question .

May be you have not read my answer. heard, but not listened?

 

[river]

river said: ↑
You havn't answered my question .

May be you have not read my answer. heard, but not listened?

Is this true .

 

[nebel]

Again , nebel

Why does energy need time ?

You are posing a question that could imply a choice, like "Why not?, such as sitting on a riverbank and watching time float by, or even getting into the thick of things and swim along.
In the expanding sphere model, time #1 is everywhere, it does not flow. but we in #3 move, into the future. An entity can be stationary (not move) in time and exist though.
The BB, it's energy started in a point in time, not a line.
If you are asking the big "why question", that is another forum I need not touch.
Ours is not to ask the reason why--

 

[nebel]

And I used to think of a singularity expanding in all dimensions, but I am beginning to suspect that universal expansion is unidirectional (in the direction of time) not omnidirectional, which might immediately present time paradoxes.

Any thoughts?

There is right now a feature article in New Scientist on the state of cosmology, serious concerns. that is why alternative theories are worth exploring.
The twin sisters thought paradox experiment above , post #890 sheds light on the single direction of movement through time view.

Can you think of an universe, spherical model, too big for us to see? rather than a disk moving side ways through time, with asymmetrical views of of the all? and that are just views in the two models here, b) expanding sphere and a) lengthening sausage.
Energy is required for both of them. uncreated. existing in
infinite energytime,
infinite timespace. (not just a block).

 

[river]

There is right now a feature article in New Scientist on the state of cosmology, serious concerns. that is why alternative theories are worth exploring.
The twin sisters thought paradox experiment above , post #890 sheds light on the single direction of movement through time view.

Can you think of an universe, spherical model, too big for us to see? rather than a disk moving side ways through time, with asymmetrical views of of the all? and that are just views in the two models here, b) expanding sphere and a) lengthening sausage.
Energy is required for both of them. uncreated. existing in
infinite energytime,
infinite timespace. (not just a block).

If you lengthen the sausage , then length collapses . Into its self . Because it is one dimensional .

An expanding sphere never collapses , physically , upon its self . Because it is three dimensional .

 

[nebel]

If you lengthen the sausage , then length collapses . Into its self . Because it is one dimensional .

River, the volume of the sausage model is not fixed. As it increases in length, because it passes through time away from the Big Bang, it expands, adds disks. It does not get thinner and becomes a string. I think, I am defending write4U's favoured.

An expanding sphere never collapses , physically , upon its self . Because it is three dimensional .

At least we hope not, a big crunch would be awful for our offspring.

 

[river]

River, the volume of the sausage model is not fixed. As it increases in length, because it passes through time away from the Big Bang, it expands, adds disks. It does not get thinner and becomes a string. I think, I am defending write4U's favoured.

At least we hope not, a big crunch would be awful for our offspring.

Nebel

One dimensional has no volume .