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

[nebel]

To explain to viewers, the above diagram, imported from pseudo science, shows an alternative theory on gravity in that the red line represents the sum of all surface point gravitational field strength values, symbol g of an abstract zero thickness bubble of given radius R.
heard that before? yes , similar in some ways to the sphere #3.
The connection is that the sum of gravity field strength ( g x 4 x pi x r^2) [red line] remains constant into infinity, it just spreads over a larger and larger area.

 

[river]

To explain to viewers, the above diagram, imported from pseudo science, shows an alternative theory on gravity in that the red line represents the sum of all surface point gravitational field strength values, symbol g of an abstract zero thickness bubble of given radius R.
heard that before? yes , similar in some ways to the sphere #3.
The connection is that the sum of gravity field strength ( g x 4 x pi x r^2) [red line] remains constant into infinity, it just spreads over a larger and larger area.

And to explain to viewers , none of this is physically based . Nor possible .

It is purely from mathematical imagination . Nothing more .

 

[nebel]

It is purely from mathematical imagination

Yes, imagine that everything moved into time #1, starting at the big bang #4, and is now 13.8 billion years from that point in time, and on it's way into the future. Yes imagine yourself in #3 moving through time into the future #1.
Bon voyage all.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
It is purely from mathematical imagination

Yes, imagine that everything moved into time #1, starting at the big bang #4, and is now 13.8 billion years from that point in time, and on it's way into the future. Yes imagine yourself in #3 moving through time into the future #1.
Bon voyage all.

Now imagine that it is just a mathematical imagination . Because that is all this is nebel .

A form of Alice in Wonderland .

 

[nebel]

A form of Alice in Wonderland .

River,
actually the "flat landers" of yore Victorian times now living in curved space time expanding into the future, receiving photons from all sides (in their plane) from up to ~13 billion years away.
A model to show what happens when you move through time, instead of

just imagining that time is flowing a river, river

 

[river]

River,
actually the "flat landers" of yore Victorian times now living in curved space time expanding into the future, receiving photons from all sides (in their plane) from up to ~13 billion years away.
A model to show what happens when you move through time, instead of

just imagining that time is flowing a river, river

Flat landers never had space , nor energy and matter to begin with .

Two dimensions can never change because there is a dimension missing .

Two dimensions can not evolve . From mathematics to the physical ; Because it can never actually exist ; ever , for infinity .

 

[nebel]

Now imagine that it is just a mathematical imagination

Thank you for the compliment. because
With " mathematical Imaginations" is how we understand the workings of the universe, Take "pi" 3.14 ..... for example, it is an abstract human mathematical construct, real in nature only because it is embodied there.
the "it" you referred to here is a math model of
every part of the universe #3 having moved through time #1 the same length since the beginning BB #4.
"it" really is a model, in mathematics of course, mostly geometry.

Flat landers never had space , nor energy and matter to begin with

The idea, the model of living in 2 dimensions is a useful image though, to understand, that photons travelling in the membrane #3 arriving like in a panorama, come from a smaller sphere #8 in/of the past #2. but
there must have been "energy -- to begin" with, because energy can not be created, is fundamental like time#1.

Two dimensions can never change because there is a dimension missing .

True, pure 2 dimensions would be a Euclid plane that is tangent to the membrane#3. so, while a flatlander can only "see" in her 2 dimensions, her 2 dimensional membrane#3 curves through the first dimension , that is time #1.
Do you assert that "time is missing"? the universe does not expand?

Two dimensions can not evolve . From mathematics to the physical ; Because it can never actually exist ; ever , for infinity .

This model of the universe, reduced to the 2 curved dimensions in membrane #3, is not meant to ever "evolve" into an entity in nature; it merely describes a time related condition. It is an attempt though to illustrate the "evolution from a point in time #4 into the sphere#3 though, allowing the drawing of conclusions about energy, the past#2, the future #1, the 13.8 year "horizon", among others. Plug in a proposition, and see where the model will lead to.

 

[nebel]

"DARK energy is everywhere – and when we say everywhere, we mean everywhere." GileatAmit

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-force-that-rules-the-universe/#ixzz6GRschK6j

"That would mean more of it is created to fill new space as the universe expands, says Heymans. --“It’s a weird …
In the theory proposed on this thread,
Energy is indeed everywhere, even in timespace #1 outside and before the universe existing in energytime. #1.
Energy dark or not, does not need to be created to evenly fill a bigger universe #3 as it expands, because
it absorbs energy in the process of expansion into the infinitely old and uncreated reservoir. so:

With the universe so constantly energized why is there question of it's death?

 

[nebel]

We're always looking toward the center, i.e the BB. Moreover, all galaxies were formed after the BB.

W4Y: you showed this image of the universe going off in one direction into the time dimension. Here is a recent article on that subject:

'We may have spotted a parallel universe going backwards in time'
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...iverse-going-backwards-in-time/#ixzz6KFN7zJqo
In the sausage model you show, we are going in one direction, another universe, happening at a different point in time might go off into a different direction, but still going into the future.
In the expanding sphere model. a universe starting at a different point in time would also expand into the future. even in our universe #3, teh other side of the sphere, has gone in the opposite direction, but has not gone backward in time.

 

[Write4U]

Seems utterly paradoxical to me. I'll need more, much more.
Particles emanating from the ground up? What is so unusual about that? Does the earth not radiate something?

This proves an entire universe is going backwards in time? In a multiverse, how can one universe evolve backwards in time, or do things devolve in the second universe?

You start with a universe full of stuff and it slowly empties out? LOL

nebel said; "has gone in the opposite direction, but has not gone backward in time"

OK I'll buy that, though I cannot imagine what "opposite direction" means.
Getting bigger, getting smaller?

What's opposite direction? Outward, inward? North, South?.........

 

[nebel]

What's opposite direction? Outward, inward? North, South?

The first dimension, Timespace, or Energytime shown as #1 has no "directions", but an infinite extent.
"going backward" in time implies returning to the past. impossible, because the past #2 is empty of specifics,
yes, all parts of the universe # 3 have moved outward, expanded into the future #1 . Entities like BH singularities have at best stopped moving through time. stuck.
All distances inside membrane #3 and the radius from the beginning increase, in all possible directions.

 

[river]

The first dimension, Timespace, or Energytime shown as #1 has no "directions", but an infinite extent.
"going backward" in time implies returning to the past. impossible, because the past #2 is empty of specifics,
yes, all parts of the universe # 3 have moved outward, expanded into the future #1 . Entities like BH singularities have at best stopped moving through time. stuck.
All distances inside membrane #3 and the radius from the beginning increase, in all possible directions.

To your first statement ;

There is NO first dimension .

All three dimensions , space , depth and breadth became together .

 

[Write4U]

All distances inside membrane #3 and the radius from the beginning increase, in all possible directions

And forward in measurable durations of arbitrary units of what we have named "time of duration" or as Michael proposes "age of existence".......

 

[nebel]

There is NO first dimension .

River, You are right, calling time the "first dimension" is a misnomer, since it would imply the initial step in a count. and
time, together with energy, is uncreated, infinite in "age" or extent, is fundamental, more like the zero, no stepping required.

All three dimensions , space , depth and breadth became together .

yes they did, starting from a point in timespace or energytime , the already existing condition, but really existing only fleetingly in time #1, of the model, because the now, in which the content #3 of these 3 latecomers exist, is of zero length.

 

[nebel]

And forward in measurable durations of arbitrary units of what we have named "time of duration" or as Michael proposes "age of existence"

W4Y, the concept of "age" comprises a beginning and an end, that is spanned by travel through a distance., or length Conveniently on a primitive level we have the movement of Earth's rotation and revolution around the Sun as happening concurrently with that movement through the timespace dimension #1. The start of my movement in 1930, was preceded by many others periods, overlapping , stretching back to the BB. The stars that forget the element we are made of. that are but forms of energy. And that energy, uncreated, existed in energytime #1. " so, timespace must have existed as long (a duration) as uncreated energy Not yet chopped up into periods of limited length.

There is NO first dimension .

R: so in what other domain for better words than timespace or energytime did uncreated energy exist in, before our 3d emerged in the Big Beginning?

 

[nebel]

IMO , when we look back in time we're always looking toward the BB, from any direction. You cannot look past the BB for space expanding on the other side of the BB.
We're always looking toward the center, i.e the BB. Moreover, all galaxies were formed after the BB.
Does that answer your question?

Here is research showing that the early universe, and its components, galaxies were spinning . so: possible the energy existing before the BB in timespace had something to do with that, or that spin was a reaction?

Kansas State University. "Asymmetry found in spin directions of galaxies: Research also suggests the early universe could have been spinning." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 1 June 2020. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200601134612.htm>.

bold added to bolster Nebel's alternative theory that time is fundamental with energy and the universe is expanding into time.

 

[river]

nebel ;

Here is research showing that the early universe, and its components, galaxies were spinning . so: possible the energy existing before the BB in timespace had something to do with that, or that spin was a reaction?

To your first statement ;

Highlighted ;

All forms of energy and matter , SPIN .

From Galaxies , Quasars , Stars , to the quantum .

To your last statement ;

timespace , is it not the same as " spacetime " ? Is there a difference ?

If there is a difference between the two , explain the differences .

 

[river]

nebel

so: possible the energy existing before the BB in timespace had something to do with that, or that spin was a reaction?

Highlighted

Oh there was energy existing , existing for infinity .

 

[nebel]

All forms of energy and matter , SPIN .[/QUOTE

Nebel replies:
The quote from Kansas University speaks the spin of the early universe, not the spins of its components. The existence of a rotation of the whole Universe would requiere mass against which our spinnig would have to react against, in some form, even the universal spin could be a leftover from the matter/antimatter imbalance for example. more interesting questions raised.

 

[nebel]

timespace , is it not the same as " spacetime " ? Is there a difference ?
If there is a difference between the two , explain the differences .

In the proposed model, the Universe is expanding as membrane #3 though timespace #1. thought to be a featureless realm in which infinitely old energy and time exists. There were no 3 space dimensions for us in the time before the "Big Bang". therefore
we live now in "spacetime", the time (marked as #2, the "past" , stretching from the central BB #4 to the present in #3. ). this is our section, out of total limitless timespace, a section marked by the existence of space, since and after after the "Big Bang".
For you it might also be "teatime", or "sleepytime" right now.
Before our Universe, there was energytime, then we came, now it is spacetime. Those that advocate other bubble/baby universes, would think that they have their own 3D space & time, their own "spacetime", so-called, if they spoke a german-like language, because

The term "spacetime" came from Einstein's mother tongue's feature to run words together to no end, to name unique new concepts, like a one-word summary of ideas.
the terms "timespace" and "energytime" are to be understood in the same way. " mathematical imaginations"[/QUOTE] so: to summarize,

Time and energy are fundamental, uncreated. they exist in a realm dubbed timespace or energytime. We live in/during spacetime, our allotted section of it, but expanding into the future.