Oldest objects in the Universe!!!!!

"Charlie Martin" wrote in
news:RCrEb.1487$Ur.56645@localhost:

Hi,
This is the first time I've visited your site so I hope this
question
is properly submitted. I recently watched a program about the oldest
observed object. It was estimate that the nebula was 12 billion light
years away, meaning we were see it as it was only 2 billion years
after the beginning of the universe.
My question, assuming the big bang and relativity are correct, how
could
an object move 12 billion light years away in the 2 billion years
since the beginning of the universe?
I find this quite puzzling and would appreciate a simple answer or
a
referral to a web site or something that could explain this.






Try he

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

L.

Umm... actually the 2 billion (light) years was since the beginning of the
universe (arguably 14 billion light years ago), so it moved 12 billion light
years away in 12 billion light years, not in 2 billion years.

"Charlie Martin" wrote in message
news:RCrEb.1487$Ur.56645@localhost...
Hi,
This is the first time I've visited your site so I hope this question
is properly submitted. I recently watched a program about the oldest
observed object. It was estimate that the nebula was 12 billion light
years
away, meaning we were see it as it was only 2 billion years after the
beginning of the universe.
My question, assuming the big bang and relativity are correct, how
could
an object move 12 billion light years away in the 2 billion years since
the
beginning of the universe?
I find this quite puzzling and would appreciate a simple answer or a
referral to a web site or something that could explain this.

I see what you're saying, but I think you're missing his point. Let me try
his logic:

1. It took 12 billion years for the light from the nebula to reach us.
2. Therefore, the nebula was 12 billion light years away from us 12 billion
years ago.
3. Therefore, the universe was 14-12=2 billion years old when the light
left the nebula on it's way to us.
4. Therefore, the nebula was 12 billion light years away from us when the
universe was 2 billion years old.

So, the question remains, how did the nebula get 12 billion light years away
from us when the universe was only 2 billion years old? Particularly when
the speed of light is supposed to be the max speed of anything?

Dark Helmet

"Kilolani" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Umm... actually the 2 billion (light) years was since the beginning of the
universe (arguably 14 billion light years ago), so it moved 12 billion
light
years away in 12 billion light years, not in 2 billion years.

"Charlie Martin" wrote in message
news:RCrEb.1487$Ur.56645@localhost...
Hi,
This is the first time I've visited your site so I hope this
question
is properly submitted. I recently watched a program about the oldest
observed object. It was estimate that the nebula was 12 billion light
years
away, meaning we were see it as it was only 2 billion years after the
beginning of the universe.
My question, assuming the big bang and relativity are correct, how
could
an object move 12 billion light years away in the 2 billion years since
the
beginning of the universe?
I find this quite puzzling and would appreciate a simple answer or a
referral to a web site or something that could explain this.

From what I've read, some figure that during the first few seconds of the big
bang, the H1 expanded at a speed greater than the speed of light. Only after it
had slowed down and it's glow (?) started that the speed of light became the top
speed.

I'm not saying this is totaly true, but in about 3 or 4 articles that's what
I've read. And while we may be seeing the light that left the object 12 billion
years ago, the object itself has moved, we are seeing it where it WAS, not where
it IS.


--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."

Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Ad World
http://adworld.netfirms.com

"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
...
I see what you're saying, but I think you're missing his point. Let me try
his logic:

1. It took 12 billion years for the light from the nebula to reach us.
2. Therefore, the nebula was 12 billion light years away from us 12 billion
years ago.
3. Therefore, the universe was 14-12=2 billion years old when the light
left the nebula on it's way to us.
4. Therefore, the nebula was 12 billion light years away from us when the
universe was 2 billion years old.

So, the question remains, how did the nebula get 12 billion light years away
from us when the universe was only 2 billion years old? Particularly when
the speed of light is supposed to be the max speed of anything?

Dark Helmet

"Kilolani" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Umm... actually the 2 billion (light) years was since the beginning of the
universe (arguably 14 billion light years ago), so it moved 12 billion
light
years away in 12 billion light years, not in 2 billion years.

"Charlie Martin" wrote in message
news:RCrEb.1487$Ur.56645@localhost...
Hi,
This is the first time I've visited your site so I hope this
question
is properly submitted. I recently watched a program about the oldest
observed object. It was estimate that the nebula was 12 billion light
years
away, meaning we were see it as it was only 2 billion years after the
beginning of the universe.
My question, assuming the big bang and relativity are correct, how
could
an object move 12 billion light years away in the 2 billion years since
the
beginning of the universe?
I find this quite puzzling and would appreciate a simple answer or a
referral to a web site or something that could explain this.










---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/03

"Starlord" wrote in message
...
From what I've read, some figure that during the first few seconds of the
big
bang, the H1 expanded at a speed greater than the speed of light. Only
after it
had slowed down and it's glow (?) started that the speed of light became
the top
speed.

I'm not saying this is totaly true, but in about 3 or 4 articles that's
what
I've read. And while we may be seeing the light that left the object 12
billion
years ago, the object itself has moved, we are seeing it where it WAS, not
where
it IS.


True, we are seeing it where it was. However, if the universe is expanding,
then it has probably been moving away from us. Therefore, it's had 12
billion years to move further away than 12 billion light years.

Dark Helmet

Yep, and how ever far it is, that light will take that much longer to reach us,
IF it's heading away, if it's moving sideways to our view, then it would remain
about the same, if it's comeing our way, they the light will be blueshifted and
someday long time from now we'd see it closer.

But I don't worry about it, life's to short to worry.


--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."

Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Ad World
http://adworld.netfirms.com

"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
...

"Starlord" wrote in message
...
From what I've read, some figure that during the first few seconds of the
big
bang, the H1 expanded at a speed greater than the speed of light. Only
after it
had slowed down and it's glow (?) started that the speed of light became
the top
speed.

I'm not saying this is totaly true, but in about 3 or 4 articles that's
what
I've read. And while we may be seeing the light that left the object 12
billion
years ago, the object itself has moved, we are seeing it where it WAS, not
where
it IS.


True, we are seeing it where it was. However, if the universe is expanding,
then it has probably been moving away from us. Therefore, it's had 12
billion years to move further away than 12 billion light years.

Dark Helmet




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/03

Doesn't your hypothesis presume we both started in exactly the same spot and
only one of us moved. If you put 2 dots on a rubber band and stretch it,
neither dot will actually be moving (relative to the rubber band), but they
will move away from each other.

"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
...

So, the question remains, how did the nebula get 12 billion light years
away
from us when the universe was only 2 billion years old? Particularly when
the speed of light is supposed to be the max speed of anything?

In article ,
"Dark Helmet" wrote:

I see what you're saying, but I think you're missing his point. Let me try
his logic:

1. It took 12 billion years for the light from the nebula to reach us.
2. Therefore, the nebula was 12 billion light years away from us 12 billion
years ago.
3. Therefore, the universe was 14-12=2 billion years old when the light
left the nebula on it's way to us.
4. Therefore, the nebula was 12 billion light years away from us when the
universe was 2 billion years old.

So, the question remains, how did the nebula get 12 billion light years away
from us when the universe was only 2 billion years old? Particularly when
the speed of light is supposed to be the max speed of anything?

Dark Helmet


..well put

..this idea has been bothering me for years and, several
times, i've tried to formulate in language and have
always been dissatisfied with the result
..i don't know why it's been so sifficult for me to
articulate it, because seeing your words makes it
seem so obvious that there is an apparent paradox

..you've come close to saying it as succinctly as possible

..so the question remains... does this apparent paradox reveal
a structural flaw in the theory or an erroneous assumption
on my part (or possibly some other explanation)

..thanks

heron

--
unDO email address
___
Nature, heron stone
to be commanded,
must be obeyed. http://home.comcast.net/~heronstone/

"heron stone" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dark Helmet" wrote:

I see what you're saying, but I think you're missing his point. Let me try
his logic:

1. It took 12 billion years for the light from the nebula to reach us.
2. Therefore, the nebula was 12 billion light years away from us 12 billion
years ago.
3. Therefore, the universe was 14-12=2 billion years old when the light
left the nebula on it's way to us.
4. Therefore, the nebula was 12 billion light years away from us when the
universe was 2 billion years old.

So, the question remains, how did the nebula get 12 billion light years away
from us when the universe was only 2 billion years old? Particularly when
the speed of light is supposed to be the max speed of anything?

Dark Helmet


.well put

.this idea has been bothering me for years and, several
times, i've tried to formulate in language and have
always been dissatisfied with the result
.i don't know why it's been so sifficult for me to
articulate it, because seeing your words makes it
seem so obvious that there is an apparent paradox

.you've come close to saying it as succinctly as possible

.so the question remains... does this apparent paradox reveal
a structural flaw in the theory or an erroneous assumption
on my part (or possibly some other explanation)

.thanks

Due to the expansion of the universe, it takes light much
longer to cover the increasing distances between places in
the universe than if there were no expansion.

The object spotted from when the universe was a mere 2 billion
years old may have been even closer to our (then) position
than 2 billion light years. Here's a crude analogy.

Imagine that there is a bug crawling along the length of an
elastic band. The bug always crawls with constant (local)
speed with respect to the elastic band's surface. So in
this analogy, the bug is like a photon of light which always
travels at a constant speed of c in its local space, and the
elastic band's surface represents space.

Now imagine that the bug is heading from its initial spot A on
the elastic band to spot B which is initially two inches
away. He sets out at his constant speed, but while he's
walking the elastic band is being stretched. He keeps moving
at his constant speed with respect to the surface, but there's
more and more distance to cover as time goes by. Let's say
that by the time he finally reaches point B that, to the
travelling bug, he had to cover 12 inches in getting from A
to B. The "actual" distance between A and B at the time that
the bug arrives at A would be much larger than 12 inches,
since the elastic went on stretching the space behind the bug
all the time he was travelling.

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
news
"heron stone" wrote in message
.thanks

Due to the expansion of the universe, it takes light much
longer to cover the increasing distances between places in
the universe than if there were no expansion.

The object spotted from when the universe was a mere 2 billion
years old may have been even closer to our (then) position
than 2 billion light years. Here's a crude analogy.

Imagine that there is a bug crawling along the length of an
elastic band. The bug always crawls with constant (local)
speed with respect to the elastic band's surface. So in
this analogy, the bug is like a photon of light which always
travels at a constant speed of c in its local space, and the
elastic band's surface represents space.

Now imagine that the bug is heading from its initial spot A on
the elastic band to spot B which is initially two inches
away. He sets out at his constant speed, but while he's
walking the elastic band is being stretched. He keeps moving
at his constant speed with respect to the surface, but there's
more and more distance to cover as time goes by. Let's say
that by the time he finally reaches point B that, to the
travelling bug, he had to cover 12 inches in getting from A
to B. The "actual" distance between A and B at the time that
the bug arrives at A would be much larger than 12 inches,
since the elastic went on stretching the space behind the bug
all the time he was travelling.


True, so let's expand this further into the neblua in question:

Suppose the nebula has been travelling away from us at 1/2 the speed of
light. I have no idea what the relative velocity of these two entities
would be, but I would assume this is on the extreme high-end. Let's assume
we have maintained this relative velocity consistently since the light
reaching us now originally left the nebula. Therefore, we would have been 9
billion light years away from the nebula 12 billion years ago. The light
travelled for 12 billion years before reaching us, in which time we would
have travelled 3 billion light years from our original point in space (each
of us would be travelling at 1/4 the speed of light to get a relative
velocity to each other of 1/2 the speed of light).

Net, net, (if I did the right math?) at an assumed expansion rate of 1/2 the
speed of light, we would have been 9 billion light years apart 12 billion
years ago. Or we were 9 billion light years apart when the universe was 2
billion years old. No matter how you slice it, we have a paradox unless the
big bang created initial velocities greater than the speed of light. Other
thoughts?

Dark Helmet