how did we get here before the light

Hi all
I recently sent the following email to some professor's of astrophysics but
none of them replied (not too surrising really) but the problem is still
bugging me..
Please use small words in reply as I am only a postman from scotland

Saturday 16:31:27

********Hi*I*am*writing*to*all*you*prof's*because* I*have*a*slight*problem.
While
trying to explain to my son the expanding universe theory which had recently
been featured on television I found I was stumped when trying to explain how
we managed to get here before the light.
********As*I*understand*it*13*.7*billion*years*ago *the*universe*started*from
almost
nothing and began its expansion. At that time we (the earth) would have been
there at the centre of things.
********Recent*reports*say*and*I*quote
*****************"Astronomers*used*the*gravity*of* the*galaxy*cluster*Abell
1689 to zoom in
on the objects behind it. They think they may have spotted galaxies 13
billion
light years away, from when the Universe was 2 billion years old"
********This*was*from*observations*made*using*the* Hubble*space*telescope.

********Here*is*the*problem*if*we*can*see*light*fr om*a*galaxy*13*billion
years ago it
must be coming from a point very close to the start of things. At that time
we must have been in very close proximity as the universe was only somewhere
between 0.7 and 2 billion years old depending on who you believe.
********So*the*light*and*the*Earth*starting*from*t he*same*general*area*of
space have
reached this area of space 13 billion years later. Does this mean that the
universe is expanding at close to the speed of light or not? Surely not and
if not what is the correct explanation for being able to see light from the
begining of the universe.
********Well*that's*my*problem,*I*hope*that*at*lea st*one*of*you*prof's*will
find the
time to enlighten me and my son.

Tks in advance
michael mcgarry
--
replace spam with michael to reply

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:11:28 +0000, michael
wrote:

Hi all
I recently sent the following email to some professor's of astrophysics but

Oh dear. I presume you mean 'professors' - not professor's. The
problem with answering such queries is that often the writer does not
express them self very well.....

none of them replied (not too surrising really) but the problem is still
bugging me..
Please use small words in reply as I am only a postman from scotland

Your career is not relevant. I assume you mean 'Scotland'.

Saturday 16:31:27
Is this relevant?

********Hi*I*am*writing*to*all*you*prof's*because *I*have*a*slight*problem.
While
trying to explain to my son the expanding universe theory which had recently
been featured on television I found I was stumped when trying to explain how
we managed to get here before the light.
********As*I*understand*it*13*.7*billion*years*ag o*the*universe*started*from
almost
nothing and began its expansion. At that time we (the earth) would have been
there at the centre of things.

Wow! What an astonishing assumption!


********Recent*reports*say*and*I*quote
*****************"Astronomers*used*the*gravity*of *the*galaxy*cluster*Abell
1689 to zoom in

Usual journalistic poor explanation. They probably meant "view" rather
than "zoom in on".


on the objects behind it. They think they may have spotted galaxies 13
billion
light years away, from when the Universe was 2 billion years old"
********This*was*from*observations*made*using*the *Hubble*space*telescope.

********Here*is*the*problem*if*we*can*see*light*f rom*a*galaxy*13*billion
years ago it
must be coming from a point very close to the start of things. At that time
we must have been in very close proximity as the universe was only somewhere
between 0.7 and 2 billion years old depending on who you believe.
********So*the*light*and*the*Earth*starting*from* the*same*general*area*of
space have
reached this area of space 13 billion years later. Does this mean that the
universe is expanding at close to the speed of light or not? Surely not and
if not what is the correct explanation for being able to see light from the
begining of the universe.
********Well*that's*my*problem,*I*hope*that*at*le ast*one*of*you*prof's*will
find the
time to enlighten me and my son.

Tks in advance
michael mcgarry

These are fundamental questions and I think that you would find the
answers by reading some recent books, or checking out some suitable web
sites. It is not easy to give such answers in a few sentences. Have a
look at some of the popular books on the universe and you should get an
idea of the meaning of the 'size' of the universe. Don't tell your son
things about which you say you know nothing; that is the best way to
confuse him. Show him the skill of reading to discover the answers.

regards

L

What a tuly ****ty, arrogant **** poor answer!


problem with answering such queries is that often the writer does not
express them self very well....



Sign of a crap teacher if you cannot accommodate this.




Your career is not relevant.

It IS. He's telling you he has little scientific bckground he can draw on.
It's called disclosure and it takes guts.


.. At that time we (the earth) would have been
there at the centre of things.

Wow! What an astonishing assumption!

Why? If EVERYTHING started from one central big-bang, then the Earth WAS at
the centre, or pretty damned close to it, along with everything else wasnt
it? Its a good assumption.


I think we 'got here before the light' because light travels in all
directions. Draw the universe as 2-D on a sheet of paper...it doesnt matter
where the points are, light travelling in all directions can reach all
points on the paper all the time. It only *appears* that we got somewhere
first.

D

"L" l@a wrote in message s.com...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:11:28 +0000, michael
wrote:

Hi all
I recently sent the following email to some professor's of astrophysics but

Oh dear. I presume you mean 'professors' - not professor's. The
problem with answering such queries is that often the writer does not
express them self very well.....

none of them replied (not too surrising really) but the problem is still
bugging me..
Please use small words in reply as I am only a postman from scotland

Your career is not relevant. I assume you mean 'Scotland'.

Saturday 16:31:27
Is this relevant?

Hi I am writing to all you prof's because I have a slight problem.
While
trying to explain to my son the expanding universe theory which had recently
been featured on television I found I was stumped when trying to explain how
we managed to get here before the light.
As I understand it 13 .7 billion years ago the universe started from
almost
nothing and began its expansion. At that time we (the earth) would have been
there at the centre of things.

Wow! What an astonishing assumption!


Recent reports say and I quote
"Astronomers used the gravity of the galaxy cluster Abell
1689 to zoom in

Usual journalistic poor explanation. They probably meant "view" rather
than "zoom in on".


on the objects behind it. They think they may have spotted galaxies 13
billion
light years away, from when the Universe was 2 billion years old"
This was from observations made using the Hubble space telescope.

Here is the problem if we can see light from a galaxy 13 billion
years ago it
must be coming from a point very close to the start of things. At that time
we must have been in very close proximity as the universe was only somewhere
between 0.7 and 2 billion years old depending on who you believe.
So the light and the Earth starting from the same general area of
space have
reached this area of space 13 billion years later. Does this mean that the
universe is expanding at close to the speed of light or not? Surely not and
if not what is the correct explanation for being able to see light from the
begining of the universe.
Well that's my problem, I hope that at least one of you prof's will
find the
time to enlighten me and my son.

Tks in advance
michael mcgarry

These are fundamental questions and I think that you would find the
answers by reading some recent books, or checking out some suitable web
sites. It is not easy to give such answers in a few sentences. Have a
look at some of the popular books on the universe and you should get an
idea of the meaning of the 'size' of the universe. Don't tell your son
things about which you say you know nothing; that is the best way to
confuse him. Show him the skill of reading to discover the answers.

regards

L


Well, I'm enlightened now. Also, its 'themselves', not 'them selfs'.

Cheers
--
K.

snip
regards

L

What a tosser! I asume like me you havnt a clue how to answer his question,
so youve picked on simple typing errors instead. Get a life!

Good luck with the answer Michael, look forward to reading it.

Col.

david wrote:

What a tuly ****ty, arrogant **** poor answer!


problem with answering such queries is that often the writer does not
express them self very well....



Sign of a crap teacher if you cannot accommodate this.




Your career is not relevant.

It IS. He's telling you he has little scientific bckground he can draw
on. It's called disclosure and it takes guts.


. At that time we (the earth) would have been
there at the centre of things.

Wow! What an astonishing assumption!

Why? If EVERYTHING started from one central big-bang, then the Earth WAS
at the centre, or pretty damned close to it, along with everything else
wasnt
it? Its a good assumption.


I think we 'got here before the light' because light travels in all
directions. Draw the universe as 2-D on a sheet of paper...it doesnt
matter where the points are, light travelling in all directions can reach
all
points on the paper all the time. It only *appears* that we got somewhere
first.

D
I thought light travelled at 186000 miles per sec so it would take a finite
time to reach a certain point . the light in question has taken 13 billion
years to reach here according to the report. So at this moment in time we
are 13 bilion light years in distance from where the light started.
If 13 billion years minus one day ago the galaxy in question were to go out
of existance (the lights went out) then tomorrow we would not see that
light anymore and if we wanted to see the galaxy again we would have to
travel away from it at greater than the speed of light in order to catch up
with the light and again see it.
13 billion years ago if we had a telescope on earth and we were looking at
that galaxy it might have been only a few light days away and we would have
seen it go out a couple of days later and it thats the case how could we
possibly see it go out again 13 billion years later..

still confused
michael
--
replace spam with michael to reply

L wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:11:28 +0000, michael
wrote:

Hi all
I recently sent the following email to some professor's of astrophysics
but

Oh dear. I presume you mean 'professors' - not professor's. The
problem with answering such queries is that often the writer does not
express them self very well.....

none of them replied (not too surrising really) but the problem is still
bugging me..
Please use small words in reply as I am only a postman from scotland

Your career is not relevant. I assume you mean 'Scotland'.

Saturday 16:31:27
Is this relevant?

Hi*I*am*writing*to*all*you*prof's*because*I*have *a*slight*problem.
While
trying to explain to my son the expanding universe theory which had
recently been featured on television I found I was stumped when trying to
explain how we managed to get here before the light.
As*I*understand*it*13*.7*billion*years*ago*the*u niverse*started*from
almost
nothing and began its expansion. At that time we (the earth) would have
been there at the centre of things.

Wow! What an astonishing assumption!


Recent*reports*say*and*I*quote
"Astronomers*used*the*gravity*of*the*galaxy*clus ter*Abell
1689 to zoom in

Usual journalistic poor explanation. They probably meant "view" rather
than "zoom in on".


on the objects behind it. They think they may have spotted galaxies 13
billion
light years away, from when the Universe was 2 billion years old"
This*was*from*observations*made*using*the*Hubble *space*telescope.

Here*is*the*problem*if*we*can*see*light*from*a*g alaxy*13*billion
years ago it
must be coming from a point very close to the start of things. At that
time we must have been in very close proximity as the universe was only
somewhere between 0.7 and 2 billion years old depending on who you
believe. So*the*light*and*the*Earth*starting*from*the*same* general*area*of
space have
reached this area of space 13 billion years later. Does this mean that the
universe is expanding at close to the speed of light or not? Surely not
and if not what is the correct explanation for being able to see light
from the begining of the universe.
Well*that's*my*problem,*I*hope*that*at*least*one *of*you*prof's*will
find the
time to enlighten me and my son.

Tks in advance
michael mcgarry

These are fundamental questions and I think that you would find the
answers by reading some recent books, or checking out some suitable web
sites. It is not easy to give such answers in a few sentences. Have a
look at some of the popular books on the universe and you should get an
idea of the meaning of the 'size' of the universe. Don't tell your son
things about which you say you know nothing; that is the best way to
confuse him. Show him the skill of reading to discover the answers.

regards

L
You imply that there is an answer to my problem and that you know the answer
so if its not too tiresome could you please point me at a web site that will
give the details with possibly some hints from your so clever self to point
me in the right direction
Yours humbly michael
--
replace spam with michael to reply

"michael" wrote in message
...
Hi all

Here is the problem if we can see light from a galaxy 13 billion
years ago it
must be coming from a point very close to the start of things. At that
time
we must have been in very close proximity as the universe was only
somewhere
between 0.7 and 2 billion years old depending on who you believe.
So the light and the Earth starting from the same general area of
space have
reached this area of space 13 billion years later. Does this mean that the
universe is expanding at close to the speed of light or not? Surely not
and
if not what is the correct explanation for being able to see light from
the
begining of the universe.
Well that's my problem, I hope that at least one of you prof's will
find the
time to enlighten me and my son.

Hi Michael, I'm not a prof, but I did study astronomy at college some time
ago, so hopefully I'll be able to give some kind of explanation that'll be
useful to you.

Because of the scale of the universe, it's hard to express in 'everyday
language' the various ideas that come out of the mathematical/scientific
treatment that professors understand. In some ways my explanation will be
'oversimplified' (and in some parts it may be plain wrong - but not
intentionally!), but it should give a starter.

TIME FOR LIGHT TO REACH US
At the time that the light we observe today left the distant galaxy, we were
indeed much closer together than we are now. However, the universe was much
younger then and we were flying apart much faster than we are now. Even now
we are flying apart at more than 95% of the speed of light, so for the
galaxies light to reach us, it has taken us the full 13 Billion years.

So yes, parts of the universe are expanding at up to and beyond the speed of
light compared to other parts. However, since the light from those bits will
NEVER catch up with us, we don't have problems with relativity.

NOT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE
To think about our position in the universe as it expands I find it helps to
imagine we are inside a huge metal box. We're nowhere special, so let us say
we're 2/3 of the way from the centre to the edge. If we were told that the
box was expanding, and we had a film of the box, we could see that in
previous frames, the whole box was smaller, but we were still in the same
relative position. Playing the film backwards we get to see everything get
closer together - eventually the size of the box gets microscopic in size,
but even so, we are still in our 'not very special' position about 2/3 way
out.

Play the film forward again, we see everything receeding from us and if the
box is big enough, we find that in every direction there are parts of the
universe that are going at relative speeds greater than the speed of light.
Since these are all 'out of sight', we don't get to see an 'edge' anywhere;
but hopefully you can see that this doesn't mean that we are at the centre.


Hope this helps.
Owen


PS about
MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION
If you go back to the 'film' of the universe, and imagine that the original
temperature was very hot; then there would have been radiation filling the
whole space. As the universe expanded, the radiation would have also
expanded to fill the space, and would have stretched out from the original
very short wavelengths to the quite long microwave radiation that we detect
nowadays. If the universe had a perfectly even distribution of energy, then
the microwave background would have been perfectly even across the sky. The
initial measurements showed that it is very uniform, but recent measurements
have detected small scale differences from the average. These represent the
relics of the original unevenness in the distribution of matter and energy
in the early universe. Taking these measurements along with the observed
distribution of clusters of galaxies, it is possible to calculate what
proportion of the universe is visible in the form of stars and galaxies etc;
hence the thinking that 70% of the universe is made up of dark matter.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:11:28 +0000, michael wrote:

********As*I*understand*it*13*.7*billion*years*ago *the*universe*started*from
almost
nothing and began its expansion. At that time we (the earth) would have
been there at the centre of things.
********Recent*reports*say*and*I*quote
*****************"Astronomers*used*the*gravity*of* the*galaxy*cluster*Abell
1689 to zoom in
on the objects behind it. They think they may have spotted galaxies 13
billion
light years away, from when the Universe was 2 billion years old"
********This*was*from*observations*made*using*the* Hubble*space*telescope.

********Here*is*the*problem*if*we*can*see*light*fr om*a*galaxy*13*billion
years ago it
must be coming from a point very close to the start of things. At that
time we must have been in very close proximity as the universe was only
somewhere between 0.7 and 2 billion years old depending on who you
believe.
********So*the*light*and*the*Earth*starting*from*t he*same*general*area*of
space have
reached this area of space 13 billion years later. Does this mean that
the universe is expanding at close to the speed of light or not? Surely
not and if not what is the correct explanation for being able to see
light from the begining of the universe.
********Well*that's*my*problem,*I*hope*that*at*lea st*one*of*you*prof's*will
find the
time to enlighten me and my son.


Light from the Galaxy group gravitationally lensed by the Abel 1689
cluster was passing through the spot of the space where the Earth stands
now for a very long time. When that group of galaxy formed and lit up,
photons started streaming in all directions. Earth formed much later & 4.6
GY after its formation the inhabitants of that rock pointed their
telescope in the right direction. Fortunately for them the Abel 1689
cluster used its gravity to bend the path of the photons from the distant
cluster so that many more of them entered the telescope's tube. The
distant galaxy cluster was discovered. But the photons from that distant
cluster could have been detected from the relative position of the future
earth, may be 12 GY ago, if somebody was there to look at it.

When a new astronomical body is discovered, excepting the newly formed
stars in the local Universe, it does not mean that their light (or any other
electromagnetic radiation) has just reached the Earth. It means that we
have just looked at them with a suitable instrument to detect that light.

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to

L
You imply that there is an answer to my problem and that you know the
answer
so if its not too tiresome could you please point me at a web site that
will
give the details with possibly some hints from your so clever self to
point
me in the right direction
Yours humbly michael
--

Hi Michael,

As I understand it there is no problem as it is space itself which is
expanding faster than light rather than any object or transmitted signal
moving through space. 13b ltyr is only our visible horizon, not the whole of
the universe. Also take a look at inflation theory. In the early universe
the theory proposes space expanded much faster than it is doing today,
freezing in small variations (which became the galaxies) because nothing
could travel across the universe fast enough to even them out.

eg see

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/970313b.html

HTH
Robin