If we are nowhere near the edge of the universe, and the universe is 13.73 billion years old, how are we able to see 13.3 odd light years across the universe? We would be able to see the near side of the Big U .43 billion light years the opposite direction, 'cause nothing can travel FTL. Right?

RedVentrue: If we are nowhere near the edge of the universe, and the universe is 13.73 billion years old, how are we able to see 13.3 odd light years across the universe? We would be able to see the near side of the Big U .43 billion light years the opposite direction, 'cause nothing can travel FTL. Right?

We're seeing back into time. the universe is everywhere and we're not in the center of it. Everything that has happened 13 billion years ago is in the sky at once and the closer things are to us, the more modern the image and closer to the present. The night sky is a time machine that only goes to the past.

RedVentrue: If we are nowhere near the edge of the universe, and the universe is 13.73 billion years old, how are we able to see 13.3 odd light years across the universe? We would be able to see the near side of the Big U .43 billion light years the opposite direction, 'cause nothing can travel FTL. Right?

Also, space/time can apparently expand much faster than light. It doesn't have that handicap.

Snark Shark II: RedVentrue: If we are nowhere near the edge of the universe, and the universe is 13.73 billion years old, how are we able to see 13.3 odd light years across the universe? We would be able to see the near side of the Big U .43 billion light years the opposite direction, 'cause nothing can travel FTL. Right?

Also, space/time can apparently expand much faster than light. It doesn't have that handicap.

Then something CAN move FTL.

Also, The "nothing can be created, nor destroyed" rule is complete bunk.

/Gots this covered

Mart Laar's beard shaver: [www.stargaters.de image 300x200]

/Gots this covered

I miss the hell outta that show.

If all matter came from a singular point, why am I looking at it now, the way it was then when I was a part of it when it happened in the first place?

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh:

Right down near the noise floor, just a few pixels wide and all after gravitational lensing to enhance it. Just imagine what might be found with better tech? I'm rooting for the James Webb Space Telescope and keeping my fingers crossed that it doesn't end up a smoldering ruin at the bottom of a failed rocket launch or budget cut.


AAAUUUUGGGGHHHHH!!

Don't JINX it!!

[pawslap]

Several questions:
1. Have we observed deep field objects (say, 13 or more billion light years away) in multiple areas across the universe, or only in an isolated section? Put another way: If we start plotting a 3D surface using polar geometry with the radius set as the distance to the furthest object away we have observed in each direction, what does that surface look like?

2.We have deduced that the universe is expanding because objects that are further away from us are redshifted. Is there a way to prove that this redshift is from expansion of the universe rather than light's interaction with gravity or another force over very long distances? I know there are all kinds of theories about this, including ones where the laws of physics were different at some time in the past.

/Should have taken an astrophysics class rather than just quitting after the 3 required semesters.

MatrixOutsider: simplicimus: Uzzah: I want to go to there.

It was there, 13.3 billion years ago. Don't have any idea what's there now.

God lives there. And he needs a starship.

RedVentrue: Snark Shark II: RedVentrue: If we are nowhere near the edge of the universe, and the universe is 13.73 billion years old, how are we able to see 13.3 odd light years across the universe? We would be able to see the near side of the Big U .43 billion light years the opposite direction, 'cause nothing can travel FTL. Right?

Also, space/time can apparently expand much faster than light. It doesn't have that handicap.

Then something CAN move FTL.

Also, The "nothing can be created, nor destroyed" rule is complete bunk.

Inflationary cosmology

tanman1975: ArcadianRefugee: tanman1975: moos: What's soul crushing about it, sensationalistmitter?

we live in a fish tank and will never explore any of that

I may never go to Japan but you don't see me getting all Emo about it.

Does that make you enlightened or domesticated?

Just poor.

sp86: busy chillin': I'm in over my head a bit now...but light years have nothing to do with time, right? It is a unit of distance, right? so we don't know how old this galaxy is...the light could have been there for a million years. a billion years, and we just now found it, right? We just know how far away it is, right? Not the exact age?

I probably shouldn't have posted, but yet, here we are.

If something is X Billion light years away that means (Barring local spatial anomalies) that that it's been traveling for X billion years and is at this point observable. This establishes an upper limit for the age of the source of the light via Y-X where Y is the calculated age of the universe. As we cannot observe this phenomena before the point we detected it due to the linearity of time we can not determine the lower limit, we can only check it against existing models. If we detect objects +15 billion light years away we will be forced to reexamine this model but currently there's no need.

This is where we start to get into the kind of thinking that my mind can't quite follow. Probably because there's too much I don't know (is the universe spherical? it seems like it would be spherical).

FTFA: ...the Universe started with a Big Bang 13.73 billion years ago, so that's a hard limit to how far away we can see.
...We're seeing it, quite literally, clear across the universe.

Why is that a hard limit to how far we can see? Do we know where we sit relative to the center of the universe? Maybe we're 13.73 billion light years from the center, in which case "clear across the universe" would be at least double that. What if we're only halfway out relative to the center? Then the universe would be twice as old and we'd have the potential to see three times farther than the current accepted limit.

/it's a good think smarter and more creative people then me are working on these things.

geek_mars: sp86: busy chillin': I'm in over my head a bit now...but light years have nothing to do with time, right? It is a unit of distance, right? so we don't know how old this galaxy is...the light could have been there for a million years. a billion years, and we just now found it, right? We just know how far away it is, right? Not the exact age?

I probably shouldn't have posted, but yet, here we are.

If something is X Billion light years away that means (Barring local spatial anomalies) that that it's been traveling for X billion years and is at this point observable. This establishes an upper limit for the age of the source of the light via Y-X where Y is the calculated age of the universe. As we cannot observe this phenomena before the point we detected it due to the linearity of time we can not determine the lower limit, we can only check it against existing models. If we detect objects +15 billion light years away we will be forced to reexamine this model but currently there's no need.

This is where we start to get into the kind of thinking that my mind can't quite follow. Probably because there's too much I don't know (is the universe spherical? it seems like it would be spherical).

FTFA: ...the Universe started with a Big Bang 13.73 billion years ago, so that's a hard limit to how far away we can see.
...We're seeing it, quite literally, clear across the universe.

Why is that a hard limit to how far we can see? Do we know where we sit relative to the center of the universe? Maybe we're 13.73 billion light years from the center, in which case "clear across the universe" would be at least double that. What if we're only halfway out relative to the center? Then the universe would be twice as old and we'd have the potential to see three times farther than the current accepted limit.

/it's a good think smarter and more creative people then me are working on these things.

The Universe has no center. (about 2:40)

\full episode here

GypsyJoker:

The Universe has no center. (about 2:40)

\full episode here

Thanx for the link. I get what he was saying, but my mind has trouble letting go of the concept of "Big bang = explosion, expansion = from point of detonation" and from there making the leap that there must be a physical location that is the site of the big bang and thus the center.
Though I really appreciated the bit about how the perspective from every galaxy is that the rest of the universe is rushing away from their particular galaxy.

geek_mars: GypsyJoker:

The Universe has no center. (about 2:40)

\full episode here

Thanx for the link. I get what he was saying, but my mind has trouble letting go of the concept of "Big bang = explosion, expansion = from point of detonation" and from there making the leap that there must be a physical location that is the site of the big bang and thus the center.
Though I really appreciated the bit about how the perspective from every galaxy is that the rest of the universe is rushing away from their particular galaxy.

It does take a bit of thinking to get away from that "point of detonation" concept. That's one of the things that's so endlessly fascinating--the way the Universe challenges so many of our preconceived notions.

If you haven't had a chance to watch the whole series, see if you can get a chance. It's still (cheesy effects and datedness and all) one of the best introductions to astronomy, and the way that astronomy is so entwined with the other sciences and our culture itself.

serial arseonist: busy chillin': sp86: busy chillin':
Option 2: ...However, once you circumnavigate the universe, you gain +1 to naval unit movement.

Well, that made me spit out my iced tea with mint leaves.