Comments on: How Can We See Galaxies 47 Billion Light Years Away When the Universe is Only 13 Billion Years Old?

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:09:27 +0000

For critical thought: Say we are looking east at A1689-zD1 and realize it is that far away. Then say we are standing on A1689-zD1. If we look up are we surrounded by star fields? If we look to the east will we see photons of remnants of the past equally as far away? I know if we look west we should see us, but what about looking east or south or north? Greg

By: Steve G

Steve G — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:31:42 +0000

Hey, I like that…

By: Jock

Jock — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:19:42 +0000

The problem with trying to explain this stuff to Americans is first getting them to understand that they are not the center of the universe!

By: phil

phil — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:55:02 +0000

Look I am as thick as they come, but how the heck do we come to a figure of 13.7 billion years old for the Universe. It seems to me that everything and I mean everything is either round or formed from round elements and even the elements are formed from round atoms and even the atoms are formed from round, do you get the picture? So if everything is round and the Universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate all you can see to get the 13.7 billion lifespan is a linear observation or have we learned a way to go back 13.7 billion years and then bend time so as to observe around the horizon? It just doesn’t make sense! Clever these scientists unfortunately I think outside the box and do not accept conventional mathematics.

By: james jackman

james jackman — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:53:03 +0000

Brand New newcomer:

for some reason this question has been bugging me. am very uneducated in this area, but,

is there any information about the universe ever having slowed down in the past(?) and re-started?

in any explosion there are several phases:why could not the ‘big bang’ have the same pattern?

hope I don’t sound goofy.

By: Stephen Garramone

Stephen Garramone — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:17:22 +0000

No argument…

Einstein sure was a genius with his application of the Lorentz equations and General Relativity proven in May 1919 or was it 1923 (with the total eclipse of the sun and the changing of position of stars behind the sun?)

I don’t think the world is flat… my brain may be, but not the world.

Looks like the universe is 39 billion light years around. Why?, Because it takes 13 billion light years to reach the furthest point, so far, and by Lorentz, if he and Einstein were right, is 13 billion light years from a point on the opposite side – making a perfect circle with the three points being equidistant from each other all 13 billion light years away from each other.

What a concept…

By: TheRafMan

TheRafMan — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:05:19 +0000

Stephen,

Just because we don’t know how to travel back and forth in time it does not necessarily mean it is not possible, after all we don’t want to be like the ones that claimed that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe.
You make a very good point that we seem to forget rather quickly: ”Lorentz et al are conjectures but so far these hypotheses have been borne out by what limited experimental evidence we have.” … and that includes Mr. Einstein, bless his soul.

By: Stephen Garramone

Stephen Garramone — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:59:08 +0000

To The Rafman -

See… it wore you out, too. Lorentz et al are conjectures but so far these hypotheses have been borne out by what limited experimental evidence we have. The slowing of time at high speeds using atomic clocks on GPS satellites, for example.

Is it conceivable that we can have three points in space (L, C, R) and all be equidistant apart and yet opposite from the central point (C)? Yes – on a sphere. In this case CL = CR = LR. BUT, to get from L to R under this paradigm one does not have to go through C, that there is a more direct route across the two dimensions which bypasses C (the common starting point.) This involves going out of the two dimensions into a third dimension, where C does not exist and going directly.

To analogize, in three dimensions, this could be possible that we jump across of fourth dimension to achive the same thing. Take a hypothetical beginning point in 3D whhere space “explodes” as is postulated by the Big Bang and imagine 3 objects traveling out from the center but remaining equidistant apart and with the center -that’s a tetrahedron with the sphere circumventing all four points (the three new points plus the center. Each point can access the other three without going through a common central point yet everything be equidistant apart. That would require a four dimensional “sphere” x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + w^2 = r^2. Lorentz thinks that “w” is time and there are a multitude of equations bringing time into play which imply such a fourth dimensional universe. Yet, we can travel back and fourth against three dimensions but not time, so what gives?
Again, this is beyond my pay grade and I agree with The The Rafman – it is time to “go to bed.”

So as Edward R. Murrow use to say, “Good Night and Good Luck.”

By: TheRafman

TheRafman — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 05:12:46 +0000

I like topics like these, it pushes our minds to the extreme.
There is something here that does not compute: either the age of the universe is much older or the galaxies that we think are 47 Billion light year away are much closer (some kind of distortion in between is causing the discrepancies perhaps?).
If the age of the universe is 13 Billion light years and let us say it was expanding at the constant speed of light (which is not) then similar to the example of my previous post where if the two objects where going in opposite directions at 300,000 km/sec, relative to each other, A and B would be traveling at the sum of their speed: 600,000 km/sec (forget Lorentz for a moment); however they would never be able to see each other while traveling at that speed because the sum is greater than the speed of light; my point is if the universe is 13 billions years old and matter was still traveling at the maximum velocity, the speed of light since the big bang, from opposite end A and B would appear to be 26 billion light years away (although they would not be able to see each other).
Also if the rate of expansion of the universe is currently increasing, it should never surpass the speed of light according to Einstein’s theory; there is no way we should be able to see galaxies as far as we think they are while the universe is smaller than the straight line distance between us and the this particular galaxy, so either the age of the universe is much older or the galaxies that we think are 47 Billion light year away are much closer.
I am going to sleep, good night.

By: Stephen Garramone

Stephen Garramone — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:25:20 +0000

No such thing as a stupid question but this is still weird, to me. My brain is too limited.