The Oldest Light in the Universe

The Oldest Light in the Universe

by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and ScienceIQ.com

"A NASA satellite has captured the sharpest-ever picture of the
afterglow of the big bang. The image contains such stunning detail that
it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent years.
Scientists used NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to
capture the new cosmic portrait, which reveals the afterglow of the big
bang, a.k.a. the cosmic microwave background. One of the biggest
surprises revealed in the data is the first generation of stars to
shine in the universe first ignited only 200 million years after the
big bang, much earlier than many scientists had expected. In addition,
the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the universe at 13.7 billion
years, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error. The WMAP
team found that the big bang and Inflation theories continue to ring
true."

http://www.physlink.com/


Sorry, Bert. That 13.7 billion year age figure seems to be firming up.

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Oldest Light in the Universe

by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and ScienceIQ.com

"A NASA satellite has captured the sharpest-ever picture of the
afterglow of the big bang. The image contains such stunning detail that
it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent years.
Scientists used NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to
capture the new cosmic portrait, which reveals the afterglow of the big
bang, a.k.a. the cosmic microwave background. One of the biggest
surprises revealed in the data is the first generation of stars to
shine in the universe first ignited only 200 million years after the
big bang, much earlier than many scientists had expected. In addition,
the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the universe at 13.7 billion
years, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error. The WMAP
team found that the big bang and Inflation theories continue to ring
true."

http://www.physlink.com/


So now, with the Hubbell, we can almost see the Big Bang?
So what exactly is stopping us, why can't we in fact see it?
If we could see it, it sure would solve a lot of arguments,
and answer a lot of questions.

Maybe we have to be at just the right distance from where the Big Bang
happened, so that the light can have all of those billions of years to get
to us?

Mark

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Oldest Light in the Universe

by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and ScienceIQ.com

"A NASA satellite has captured the sharpest-ever picture of the
afterglow of the big bang. The image contains such stunning detail that
it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent years.
Scientists used NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to
capture the new cosmic portrait, which reveals the afterglow of the big
bang, a.k.a. the cosmic microwave background. One of the biggest
surprises revealed in the data is the first generation of stars to
shine in the universe first ignited only 200 million years after the
big bang, much earlier than many scientists had expected. In addition,
the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the universe at 13.7 billion
years, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error. The WMAP
team found that the big bang and Inflation theories continue to ring
true."

http://www.physlink.com/


So now, with the Hubbell, we can almost see the Big Bang?
So what exactly is stopping us, why can't we in fact see it?
If we could see it, it sure would solve a lot of arguments,
and answer a lot of questions.

Ok, so now we can see something that happened 200 million years after the
big bang, seems like we are getting very close to seeing the big bang.
My question is will it really be the big bang, would that not imply that
since we can observe past events, we should be able to go back in time, if
we find something faster than light.

Maybe we have to be at just the right distance from where the Big Bang
happened, so that the light can have all of those billions of years to get
to us?

Mark

"Dana" wrote in message
...
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Oldest Light in the Universe

by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and ScienceIQ.com

"A NASA satellite has captured the sharpest-ever picture of the
afterglow of the big bang. The image contains such stunning detail that
it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent years.
Scientists used NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to
capture the new cosmic portrait, which reveals the afterglow of the big
bang, a.k.a. the cosmic microwave background. One of the biggest
surprises revealed in the data is the first generation of stars to
shine in the universe first ignited only 200 million years after the
big bang, much earlier than many scientists had expected. In addition,
the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the universe at 13.7 billion
years, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error. The WMAP
team found that the big bang and Inflation theories continue to ring
true."

http://www.physlink.com/


So now, with the Hubbell, we can almost see the Big Bang?
So what exactly is stopping us, why can't we in fact see it?
If we could see it, it sure would solve a lot of arguments,
and answer a lot of questions.

Ok, so now we can see something that happened 200 million years after the
big bang, seems like we are getting very close to seeing the big bang.
My question is will it really be the big bang, would that not imply that
since we can observe past events, we should be able to go back in time, if
we find something faster than light.

Yes, if we could somehow "phase into" the light from all those billions of
years ago, maybe we could somehow travel into the past.

We would have to become what we perceive somehow.
Not sure whether that would be a more physical or more spiritual experience.

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Oldest Light in the Universe

by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and ScienceIQ.com

"A NASA satellite has captured the sharpest-ever picture of the
afterglow of the big bang. The image contains such stunning detail that
it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent years.
Scientists used NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to
capture the new cosmic portrait, which reveals the afterglow of the big
bang, a.k.a. the cosmic microwave background. One of the biggest
surprises revealed in the data is the first generation of stars to
shine in the universe first ignited only 200 million years after the
big bang, much earlier than many scientists had expected. In addition,
the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the universe at 13.7 billion
years, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error. The WMAP
team found that the big bang and Inflation theories continue to ring
true."

http://www.physlink.com/


So now, with the Hubbell, we can almost see the Big Bang?
So what exactly is stopping us, why can't we in fact see it?
If we could see it, it sure would solve a lot of arguments,
and answer a lot of questions.

Maybe we have to be at just the right distance from where the Big Bang
happened, so that the light can have all of those billions of years to get
to us?

Mark

I am still confused about seeing these images from the past. Take the BB,
for instance. It's image has been traveling radially at the speed of light
ever since it happened. Shortly after the BB, physical matter started to
slow down and began to clump together, thus further slowing down. Along the
way, about 8 billion years later, Earth formed. By my estimation, the image
of the BB has traveled way beyond the Earth, the edge of the visible
Universe, even and is lost forever, at least as a pictorial visual. It is
almost as if someone shoots a pistol, then taking off running in the same
direction and claiming to catch the bullet just before it hits the ground.

As far as the background emissions, I think that the Universe wants to be at
the absolute Zero, but the combined radiation of the billions of galaxies is
enough to keep the ambient galactic temperature at about 3.5 or so degrees
above zero. As they are receding from each other, that is very slowly
dropping towards zero, and by the time the last stars blip out into
oblivion, everything will stop.

"Hagar" wrote in message
...

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Oldest Light in the Universe

by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and ScienceIQ.com

"A NASA satellite has captured the sharpest-ever picture of the
afterglow of the big bang. The image contains such stunning detail that
it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent years.
Scientists used NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to
capture the new cosmic portrait, which reveals the afterglow of the big
bang, a.k.a. the cosmic microwave background. One of the biggest
surprises revealed in the data is the first generation of stars to
shine in the universe first ignited only 200 million years after the
big bang, much earlier than many scientists had expected. In addition,
the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the universe at 13.7 billion
years, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error. The WMAP
team found that the big bang and Inflation theories continue to ring
true."

http://www.physlink.com/


So now, with the Hubbell, we can almost see the Big Bang?
So what exactly is stopping us, why can't we in fact see it?
If we could see it, it sure would solve a lot of arguments,
and answer a lot of questions.

Maybe we have to be at just the right distance from where the Big Bang
happened, so that the light can have all of those billions of years to
get to us?

Mark

I am still confused about seeing these images from the past. Take the BB,
for instance. It's image has been traveling radially at the speed of
light ever since it happened. Shortly after the BB, physical matter
started to slow down and began to clump together, thus further slowing
down. Along the way, about 8 billion years later, Earth formed. By my
estimation, the image of the BB has traveled way beyond the Earth, the
edge of the visible Universe, even and is lost forever, at least as a
pictorial visual.

Considering this, something is very wrong here. If we are almost seeing the
Big Bang, then there should be very little universe on the opposite side of
us from the direction of those ancient galaxies.

This is because the universe should end wherever the Big Bang is perceived,
as the perception of the Big Bang has been traveling as fast as light can
the whole while.

Unless of course, the universe is expanding faster than the "speed limit"
of 186,000 miles per second!



It is
almost as if someone shoots a pistol, then taking off running in the same
direction and claiming to catch the bullet just before it hits the ground.

As far as the background emissions, I think that the Universe wants to be
at the absolute Zero, but the combined radiation of the billions of
galaxies is enough to keep the ambient galactic temperature at about 3.5
or so degrees above zero. As they are receding from each other, that is
very slowly dropping towards zero, and by the time the last stars blip out
into oblivion, everything will stop.

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"Hagar" wrote in message
...

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Oldest Light in the Universe

by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and ScienceIQ.com

"A NASA satellite has captured the sharpest-ever picture of the
afterglow of the big bang. The image contains such stunning detail
that
it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent
years.
Scientists used NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to
capture the new cosmic portrait, which reveals the afterglow of the
big
bang, a.k.a. the cosmic microwave background. One of the biggest
surprises revealed in the data is the first generation of stars to
shine in the universe first ignited only 200 million years after the
big bang, much earlier than many scientists had expected. In addition,
the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the universe at 13.7
billion
years, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error. The WMAP
team found that the big bang and Inflation theories continue to ring
true."

http://www.physlink.com/


So now, with the Hubbell, we can almost see the Big Bang?
So what exactly is stopping us, why can't we in fact see it?
If we could see it, it sure would solve a lot of arguments,
and answer a lot of questions.

Maybe we have to be at just the right distance from where the Big Bang
happened, so that the light can have all of those billions of years to
get to us?

Mark

I am still confused about seeing these images from the past. Take the
BB,
for instance. It's image has been traveling radially at the speed of
light ever since it happened. Shortly after the BB, physical matter
started to slow down and began to clump together, thus further slowing
down. Along the way, about 8 billion years later, Earth formed. By my
estimation, the image of the BB has traveled way beyond the Earth, the
edge of the visible Universe, even and is lost forever, at least as a
pictorial visual.

Considering this, something is very wrong here. If we are almost seeing
the
Big Bang, then there should be very little universe on the opposite side
of
us from the direction of those ancient galaxies.

Why would you say that. If the BB is the point and has been expanding in all
directions ever since, there should be just as much universe on the opposite
side as we observe here.


This is because the universe should end wherever the Big Bang is
perceived,
as the perception of the Big Bang has been traveling as fast as light can
the whole while.

Unless of course, the universe is expanding faster than the "speed limit"
of 186,000 miles per second!

Some say it is. The red shift on some of the farthest galaxies we can see,
tend to indicate they are going faster than the speed of light.




It is
almost as if someone shoots a pistol, then taking off running in the
same
direction and claiming to catch the bullet just before it hits the
ground.

As far as the background emissions, I think that the Universe wants to
be
at the absolute Zero, but the combined radiation of the billions of
galaxies is enough to keep the ambient galactic temperature at about 3.5
or so degrees above zero. As they are receding from each other, that is
very slowly dropping towards zero, and by the time the last stars blip
out
into oblivion, everything will stop.

"Dana" wrote in message
...
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"Hagar" wrote in message
...

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Oldest Light in the Universe

by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and ScienceIQ.com

"A NASA satellite has captured the sharpest-ever picture of the
afterglow of the big bang. The image contains such stunning detail
that
it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent
years.
Scientists used NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to
capture the new cosmic portrait, which reveals the afterglow of the
big
bang, a.k.a. the cosmic microwave background. One of the biggest
surprises revealed in the data is the first generation of stars to
shine in the universe first ignited only 200 million years after the
big bang, much earlier than many scientists had expected. In
addition,
the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the universe at 13.7
billion
years, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error. The WMAP
team found that the big bang and Inflation theories continue to ring
true."

http://www.physlink.com/


So now, with the Hubbell, we can almost see the Big Bang?
So what exactly is stopping us, why can't we in fact see it?
If we could see it, it sure would solve a lot of arguments,
and answer a lot of questions.

Maybe we have to be at just the right distance from where the Big Bang
happened, so that the light can have all of those billions of years to
get to us?

Mark

I am still confused about seeing these images from the past. Take the
BB,
for instance. It's image has been traveling radially at the speed of
light ever since it happened. Shortly after the BB, physical matter
started to slow down and began to clump together, thus further slowing
down. Along the way, about 8 billion years later, Earth formed. By my
estimation, the image of the BB has traveled way beyond the Earth, the
edge of the visible Universe, even and is lost forever, at least as a
pictorial visual.

Considering this, something is very wrong here. If we are almost seeing
the
Big Bang, then there should be very little universe on the opposite side
of
us from the direction of those ancient galaxies.

Why would you say that.

The place that the Big Bang is perceivable has to be traveling outward from
the very center of the universe as a giant expanding shell, at the speed of
light. And we say nothing can go faster than that speed. So if galaxies
are traveling faster than the place where the Big Bang is observable,
galaxies have to be traveling faster than light.

Or at least faster than what we currently perceive as light speed.

WRONG, the redshift is just the means used to tell how far away they are.
Their light is so old that instead of it being blue as it was, it has
shifted to the red and this does NOT mean it has gotten faster. The speed of
light has always been the 186,000 mps but light does shift as it moves. You
look at M31 and you'd find because its heading right towards the milkyway,
it's light is more blueshifted instead of redshifted.


--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html


"Dana" wrote in message
...

Thomas Jefferson
"Hagar" wrote in message
...

I am still confused about seeing these images from the past. Take the BB,
for instance. It's image has been traveling radially at the speed of
light
ever since it happened. Shortly after the BB, physical matter started to
slow down and began to clump together, thus further slowing down.

And then it started to speed up again and expand.

Along the
way, about 8 billion years later, Earth formed. By my estimation, the
image
of the BB has traveled way beyond the Earth, the edge of the visible
Universe, even and is lost forever, at least as a pictorial visual. It is
almost as if someone shoots a pistol, then taking off running in the same
direction and claiming to catch the bullet just before it hits the ground.

Just like the light we see from the next closet star is something like 4
years behind it is now. We will not see a real time image, but something
that happened far in the past.

As far as the background emissions, I think that the Universe wants to be
at
the absolute Zero, but the combined radiation of the billions of galaxies
is
enough to keep the ambient galactic temperature at about 3.5 or so degrees
above zero. As they are receding from each other, that is very slowly
dropping towards zero, and by the time the last stars blip out into
oblivion, everything will stop.