michel123456

But we are envisioning how things were in our past. The vision is deformed, yes, but still what we see comes from the past. Yes. And each additional sphere is more in the past. True, I cannot. I am inside an observable universe and yes I expect to be able to capture coming from far away in distance and from far away in time, the original big bang or at least its remnants. And I think we actually do that, It is supposed to be the CMB. That's what troubles me. How is it reconcilable that we observe galaxies C & D totally appart & in the past and from this observation conclude that they were co-located & in the past?

I really wonder what Enthalpy will respond but: _I think that the surface of the cone doesn't matter, what matters is the diameter. If you were to calculate the amount of rain instead of photons, you wouldn't receive more water because it is a cone. _Also if you draw a sketch to scale of the sattelite-Earth-Sun combination, it may result that the Sun is so huge and the Earth so small, so that your remark about the antenna pointing to the Earth has no importance at all, in fact at 40 AU the antenna is always roughly pointing to the Sun (I think).

Since you seem to understand the cone very well, a simple question in the hope to find (maybe) someone who understands me: You wrote What about the inside part of the cone? can we directly observe the inside part of the cone? To see inside would require a signal travelling slower than light.

5 monkeys experiment. I don't know if it has ever been conducted. Google it. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-experiment-with-five-monkeys-a-ladder-a-banana-and-a-water-spray-condu

Yes, yes, yes. The older they are, the further away and further apart they appear. They do not come together to the singularity, they spread away in the past.

Isn't it what we are observing from the POV of the Earth ? The arrows representing the direction & apparent velocity

Am I wrong here too? In this case, the maths (and the diagrams) explain things that I cannot put into my mind. The only one way I could understand the situation would be that the very ancient galaxies were already there, far away from us, a long time ago IOW, not close to each other.

Oh. Do you mean that we do not observe the 2 people with their nose collated to the back of the "other one" because the space between the nose & the back has expanded?

Now I am going to change the conditions a little bit. We don't have to imagine where the two people were in the past. We are observing right now the situation in which they were in the past. The one on the west has its nose litterally collated to the back of "another one" in front of him. The same goes for the guy going east. That's what greater density means. The BBT states that those two "other ones" are closer to each other than the 2 people we are observing. (or am I wrong here?) Following Ned's diagram, at the extreme those two "other ones" are one and same person: it is ourself in the past. Do I understand clearly?

Agree. Agree. Agree. I am glad to hear that from you. Agree. Agree. Agree. If we agree on everything, then things must be very simple. I say that, since it is the same you, since you have not duplicated, it means that you have moved through time. EXACTLY as you move in space. It means to me that you have changed coordinates. I say nothing more. For the moment.

Yes. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/44385-quibbles-with-the-balloon-analogy/?p=518081

That makes sense. I will address this later if you don't mind. If it makes sense to you then you don't have to bother with the inside-out thing.

I am not "in the photo". If I was, I would have duplicate and nobody here like the idea. My image has imprint the photographic paper, yes. it is a print, like the print of your feet in the sand while walking on the beach. It does not prevent anyone else to make a new footprint onto yours. Maybe. Maybe not.

No. Because we are looking into the past. Where am I wrong in my statements? And that makes sense to you? C & D are closer to the BB.

????? Look, the most impressive answer I have found so far is a diagram from Ned Wright's tutorials That looks very logical. However, when you look to the sky, don't we look to the past? the configuration is the following, with the letter Y (You) as the observer: C--A-Y-B--D The BBT states that C & D were (are, because we are actually observing the past) closer to each other than A & B. You can find tricks for that to happen. For example you can write the configuration down onto a sheet of paper then roll it so that C & D are in contact. You can also plot the positions on Ned's diagram. However, in real 3D (4D) world, you cannot do that. If you rewind back universe's evolution, C and D will always remain further away from each other than A and B. The initial configuration will never revert upside-down like a sock. It will never become (I have some difficulty to write it down) Y-A--CD--B-(Y?) where CD are close to the Big Bang.

I cannot accept what I cannot understand, that is as simple as that. You don't need to apology either, i understand your POV about peer reviewed theories, I don't follow the same methodology. My POV is that nobody so far has been able to answer some very simple questions. One of this question is the one in my previous post: How is it possible that 2 far away galaxies A & B as observed on opposite sides of the sky were once together? density is not a good answer for 2 good reasons 1. higher density is not observed 2. it does not answer the question. How is it possible that galaxies C & D, more ancient than A & B, look in the sky at an increased distance from each other although our Theory states that they should be closer?

I wonder if any of you want to understand my objection. What we observe is a universe that is huge. The more we look in the past, the more huge it is. The conclusion we get from this very obvious information is that in the past, the universe was smaller. Don't you see any contradiction here? Am I the only one living on this Forum?

We do NOT observe the older, the more close together.

I am unable to understand how a far away galaxy as seen from the East was together with a far away galaxy as seen from the west, a long time ago, because the process that we actually observing is exactly the contrary: the older, the more far away.

The further we LOOK. Evidence (what we look at)says that galaxies are further apart. You transform this evidence into its contrary because you prefer the model. How do you call that methodology in science?

if i understand correctly, we share the same POV. Yes it's the same "you". There is only one single "you" traveling through time, describing a path exactly as the path when you move from A to B. Suppose you were once at coordinate x100,y100,z100,t=1, now you are at coordinate x100,y100,z100,t100. IOW coordinate x100,y100,z100,t=1 is free. You have gone from it. If the distance was huuge, like the distance between 2 galaxies, would you say that they share the same time?

Thank you. I'll keep "the less dense it appears now" as the evidence. BTW this evidence is not listed in your link http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence And the statement "the further we look the more dense the universe becomes" is wrong.

Do you have some evidence?

No, I believe it shows inaccurately the path of my existence. I will show here below what I think is more accurate: Your extent in time go from your head to your feet. Because there exist some distance. Any material object that is not a point particle should be represented like this. The diagonal slides into time, it moves. The path in time would be represented by a surface. This path in time would be the corresponding representation of a path in space. It is NOT the object itself.