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

[beil]

We don't know what there was pre BB, there may have been "something," see "cyclic models."

right, so we must infer from the product ,that there must have been something endowed with a lot of Energy. Cyclic modes kick the ball only down the road.

Also we have explained what Energy is used for in terms of explanatory function rather than a thing in its self.

In this thread I never used the term as meaning freestanding energy, merely as a minimum requirement, among other factors. That is why I asked you to say what you have in mind about my understanding. Energy on our side of the BB has so many aspects, only a minor one being a number in the equations

If the BB was literally the beginning of time, then an "energy" or "time" or space actually is a meaningless concept.

that is a big "IF", because time has no beginning. Our universe has a beginning, our time, spacetime, but my conclusions are,
That energy can not be created, so,-- must have always existed. It needed time to exist in, ergo: time always existed too.
Are you not glad to exist, and our Time, Energy, and Space are not only meaningless concepts. ??

I'm also a layman w.r.t. Cosmology, astrophysics/physics.

so was the clerk at the patent office.

 

[Pinball1970]

so was the clerk at the patent office

Albert was a physics graduate working on his PhD whilst at that job, he submitted it around the same time as his key papers. He would have been reading cutting edge published literature on his subject at that time. So even though he was still quite young, calling him a layman would not be accurate in this case.

 

[Pinball1970]

time has no beginning

Why not? If the BB was the beginning of everything, all mass, radiation, time and space, then that was the beginning. To talk of any of those things before that has no meaning.

 

[beil]

Albert was a physics graduate working on his PhD whilst at that job, he submitted it around the same time as his key papers. He would have been reading cutting edge published literature on his subject at that time. So even though he was still quite young, calling him a layman would not be accurate in this case.

yeah, sorry, I was too quick on the trigger, could not resist the jab. At that time he also had great help from his friends, aficionados all.

 

[beil]

Why not? If the BB was the beginning of everything, all mass, radiation, time and space, then that was the beginning. To talk of any of those things before that has no meaning.

That is an iffy proposition, good minds have thought around the BB, into the more distant past- The 'Dirac sea' proposed among many.
The Big Beginning, (to avoid the joke) is only the start of our universe, our local time. Our universe perhaps one of many. --
Made by the use of Energy that was already there, outside our not yet existing, and initially small universe. so, . Au contraire:
tracing back beyond the Bang might have the most, rather than no meaning. Might like in applied Energy.

 

[Pinball1970]

yeah, sorry, I was too quick on the trigger, could not resist the jab. At that time he also had great help from his friends, aficionados all.

Hardly a Jab you were comparing me, be it inadvertently, to Einstein.
There are many differences between Einstein and myself, the main one being he was an unparalleled, gifted, intuitive, scientific genius.
We had things in common too, curiosity regarding the operation of the universe and Bach was and is number one.

 

[Pinball1970]

good minds have thought around the BB, into the more distant past- The 'Dirac sea' proposed among many

I already mentioned cyclic models.

 

[beil]

I already mentioned cyclic models.

that is just kicking the can down the road.

 

[beil]

I already mentioned cyclic models.

That would make our universe, from a greater distance# appear like a blinking object, a beacon of light, proving that it's creator was both willing and able to do work., endowed with Energy.

 

[Pinball1970]

That would make our universe, from a greater distance# appear like a blinking object, a beacon of light

No idea, that's not how the science works. Does the model fit with the data yes or no?

proving that it's creator was both willing and able to do work., endowed with Energy.

That doesn't mean anything.

 

[foghorn]

That would make our universe, from a greater distance# appear like a blinking object, a beacon of light,

MY Bold
" from a greater distance# appear like a blinking object, a beacon of light, "

Outside the universe??
Beacon of light emitted from universe??
Losing energy via emission of light to outside the universe??

 

[exchemist]

right, so we must infer from the product ,that there must have been something endowed with a lot of Energy. Cyclic modes kick the ball only down the road.

In this thread I never used the term as meaning freestanding energy, merely as a minimum requirement, among other factors. That is why I asked you to say what you have in mind about my understanding. Energy on our side of the BB has so many aspects, only a minor one being a number in the equations

that is a big "IF", because time has no beginning. Our universe has a beginning, our time, spacetime, but my conclusions are,
That energy can not be created, so,-- must have always existed. It needed time to exist in, ergo: time always existed too.
Are you not glad to exist, and our Time, Energy, and Space are not only meaningless concepts. ??

so was the clerk at the patent office.

He was not a clerk. He was a patent office examiner. That is an intellectual job requiring a science or engineering degree and considerable powers of analysis, to determine what if anything is novel and patentable in the patent applications submitted. (I once trained to be a patent agent, the guy who submits applications to these people on behalf of clients. Examiners are far from being mere clerks.)

 

[beil]

He was not a clerk. He was a patent office examiner. That is an intellectual job requiring a science or engineering degree and considerable powers of analysis, to determine what if anything is novel and patentable in the patent applications submitted. (I once trained to be a patent agent, the guy who submits applications to these people on behalf of clients. Examiners are far from being mere clerks.)

Thank you for the correction. I did not attempt to downgrade Einstein's great mental capacity in that hasty comment. I am well acquainted with the patent procedures, in the US anyway, and the examiner's job also takes legal acumen. A word that can slip through, wrongly, in the claims, can later be a million $ loss in litigation. A good sense of humor helps too

 

[sandman123]

yes

You might want to rephrase that: the BB is not a center of anything (at least not in mainstream cosmology). It's the starting point of our universe, but it can't be called a center in any meaningful way, to the best of my knowledge.

it was just a start to some beginning, or the start of what we know as beginning at the least. . .

 

[beil]

MY Bold
" from a greater distance# appear like a blinking object, a beacon of light, "

Outside the universe??
Beacon of light emitted from universe??
Losing energy via emission of light to outside the universe??

1)Yes, there always was on 'outside ' to our universe, particularly before it's beginning item #1.
2) sorry, "appear as" is not the same as "is". not a focused beam but a variation of the general Energy level in timespace. An oscillation from a cyclic universe. All our messages here are sent into the future. received from the past.
3) There might be a local loss and gain from the eternal energy outside the universe>. contraction cycle would show higher local energy level.
Perhaps 'seeing' was the wrong term, possibly more like feeling, the pressure waves from a foghorn.

 

[beil]

yes

it was just a start to some beginning, or the start of what we know as beginning at the least. . .

thanks, yeah, there ismight be such a thing as a starting line, if you considered 'time' to be a river. The present alternative hypothesis uses
a starting point #4 of the movement through time, in accord with our observations.# The term

"Start of a beginning" gives us Double focus for the from the ----- 0 movement, stasis, ------ to advancement.

I had thought "not Einstein" had rejoined the conversation. Thank you for bringing back that authority.
# The receding velocities, Hubble observations are ~ even in all directions.

 

[Pinball1970]

1)Yes, there always was on 'outside ' to our universe, particularly before it's beginning item #1.

1."The Universe" by definition is everything that exists so there cannot be an "outside" to it.

t a variation of the general Energy level in timespace

2.That has no meaning.

There might be a local loss and gain from the eternal energy outside the universe>.

3.See comment #1

 

[beil]

1."The Universe" by definition is everything that exists so there cannot be an "outside" to it.

2.That has no meaning.

3.See comment #1

1) that is your preferred definition. however,
In the context of The Fringe, Alter- native hypotheses, , here - please
go beyond that pre- Galilean mindset. ---- how about the Multiverse-s, Our universe, Unique universe
2) as has been pointed out, Energy and Time are eternal, our universe clearly is not. Please so not be de-meaning. accept the proofs. ***
3) yes do. Here too.
just as hint : -- 2 Chron. 2:6.
*** The past is most important, we would not be here without it. That is why we build better and better telescopes, to get better questions.

 

[Pinball1970]

that is your preferred definition. however

It's not mine. If we cannot agree what words mean then we will not get very far discussing ideas.
"The Universe" by definition is everything in existence, the observable universe is everything we are capable of detecting.

as has been pointed out, Energy and Time are eternal, our universe clearly is not. Please so not be de-meaning. accept the proofs.

We don't know that. No point in simply claiming things we don't know.

we would not be here without it.

If you accept the Universe is everything that exists how can we ever be or anything ever be outside it?

 

[beil]

It's not mine. If we cannot agree what words mean(4) then we will not get very far discussing ideas.
"The Universe" by definition is everything in existence, the observable universe is everything we are capable of detecting. (3)

1)We don't know that. No point in simply claiming things we don't know.

2)If you accept the Universe is everything that exists how can we ever be or anything ever be outside it?

1) Yes we do. Energy can not be created, so it must have always existed, had no beginning, must be eternal.
Energy can not be destroyed, so must already exist in the eternal future. Where ever we go, whenever we arrive there, there will be energy! so

Time, (past present future) aways existed, because nothing, particularly energy in its many iterations, can not exist without having Time to exist in.

2) I, like many, do not accept that --- this, our Universe, phantastic as it is, is -not-everything in existence. The definition is outdated. see multiverse. as only one example

3) detectives: we have detected the properties, equivalents, of energy that must have implications for the eternal past and future. It is in the works.
4) *meaning of words: In alternative, aka new theories, you will have to accept, that new terms will be forget #, and the broadest, even new understandings of words be used. # see Einstein's "spacetime" and ,-/ Timespace, Energytime in this new, altered, alternative theory.

Where ever we go, whenever we arrive there, Energy and Time will be already there.