The Oldest Light in the Universe

"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.

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"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,

Correct, so at the point where the BB started, there should be equal amounts
of space surrounding it. (If the universe is expanding in a sphere shape)

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.

Light speed we proobably have correct for the value, but yes it appears the
universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.

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
...

"Starlord" wrote in message
. ..
WRONG, the redshift is just the means used to tell how far away they are.

Correct, but it was this redshift that showed the Scientists that the
Universe was expanding, and the redshifts showed the scientists that the
expansion was going faster than they thought.
Which led them to the fact that the universe is expanding quicker than the
speed of light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
In particular, Doppler redshift is bound by special relativity so v c is
impossible while, in contrast, v c is possible for cosmological redshift
because the space which separates the objects (e.g., a quasar from the
Earth) can expand faster than the speed of light.[19] More mathematically,
the viewpoint that "distant galaxies are receding" and the viewpoint that
"the space between galaxies is expanding" are related by changing coordinate
systems. Expressing this precisely requires working with the mathematics of
the Robertson-Walker metric. [20]

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.

Correct, just that the space between us and what we view has expanded
quicker than the speed of light.

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.

Correct, but there is something at play that appears to be going faster than
the speed of light, to account for the size and expansion rate of the
universe.
Way over my head, but I enjoy reading about it.



--
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
...

I would NOT relay on what that outfit puts out, as a lot of it is pure 100%
garbage. While the ubv. maybe expanding, it can NOT do it faster than light
and I haven to get both S&T and Astronomy and all the JPL/Cal-tech bulletins
and there's NOTHING that is faster then the SOL.


--
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
...
"Starlord" wrote in message
. ..
WRONG, the redshift is just the means used to tell how far away they are.

Correct, but it was this redshift that showed the Scientists that the
Universe was expanding, and the redshifts showed the scientists that the
expansion was going faster than they thought.
Which led them to the fact that the universe is expanding quicker than the
speed of light.

Starlord wrote:
I would NOT relay on what that outfit puts out, as a lot of it is pure 100%
garbage. While the ubv. maybe expanding, it can NOT do it faster than light
and I haven to get both S&T and Astronomy and all the JPL/Cal-tech bulletins
and there's NOTHING that is faster then the SOL.


--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond


Well I guess that settles it.

The Starlord has spoken!

Double-A

"Starlord" wrote in message
. ..
I would NOT relay on what that outfit puts out, as a lot of it is pure
100%
garbage. While the ubv. maybe expanding, it can NOT do it faster than
light
and I haven to get both S&T and Astronomy and all the JPL/Cal-tech
bulletins
and there's NOTHING that is faster then the SOL.

Some scientists are thinking otherwise on the speed of light.
From what I read if we are strictly limited to the speed of light being a
hard limit and a constant, there would be some problems with our present
theories on how the universe expanded so quickly.
One theory I read was that in the early stages of the universe the speed of
light was faster than what we see now. Implying that the speed of light does
not have to be a hard limit.
Like I say very interesting reading what some of the cosmologists and
Physics guys are coming up with.


--
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
...
"Starlord" wrote in message
. ..
WRONG, the redshift is just the means used to tell how far away they
are.

Correct, but it was this redshift that showed the Scientists that the
Universe was expanding, and the redshifts showed the scientists that the
expansion was going faster than they thought.
Which led them to the fact that the universe is expanding quicker than
the
speed of light.

"Dana" wrote in message
...
"Starlord" wrote in message
. ..
I would NOT relay on what that outfit puts out, as a lot of it is pure
100%
garbage. While the ubv. maybe expanding, it can NOT do it faster than
light
and I haven to get both S&T and Astronomy and all the JPL/Cal-tech
bulletins
and there's NOTHING that is faster then the SOL.

Some scientists are thinking otherwise on the speed of light.
From what I read if we are strictly limited to the speed of light being a
hard limit and a constant, there would be some problems with our present
theories on how the universe expanded so quickly.
One theory I read was that in the early stages of the universe the speed
of
light was faster than what we see now. Implying that the speed of light
does
not have to be a hard limit.
Like I say very interesting reading what some of the cosmologists and
Physics guys are coming up with.

Cosmologists have no problem with the speed of light!
In the moments of the Big Bang it was space that was
expanding, and it did so for a brief period (called
inflation) at *many* times the speed of light.

Note that there is no contradiction with Relativity on
this point, either the special or general theories.
General Relativity maintains that nothing can move
*in space* faster than the speed of light -- It says
nothing about how fast distant regions of space itself
may be moving with respect to each other.

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...
"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. 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.

Your model of the Big Bang is flawed; you're picturing
everything rushing out of an explosion into pre-existing
space. The BB was an explosion (expansion) of space
itself, occurred everywhere (everywhere that existed) at
once, and there was no center.

OK, I'll bite on this one: if there was NO space before the BB, what was
there instead ??

The expansion was so fast that light from events that
happened even relatively close to one another could
not reach each other since the space between expanded
at many times the speed of light itself.

That's been termed as "hyper-inflation", since there was nothing to impede
the outward expansion into the existing, infinite VOID of space!!

We're seeing light that left those (then) "nearby" events just
arriving now. So when we look out into space in *any*
direction, we're looking back in time towards the Big Bang.

Once again, you cannot shoot a gun and then run fast enough to where the
bullet finally hits the ground, spin around and take a photograph of the
muzzle flsh.

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.

Nope. The cosmic background radiation is much more uniform
than the clumpy matter concentrations of galaxies, and
matches the curve of black body radiation very precisely.

COBE determined that the background radiation is indeed NOT uniform, but
rather blotchy. Even though that difference is measured in fractions of a
degree K, nonetheless it matches the "clumpiness" of galaxy cluster
distribution throughout the observable universe.

"Hagar" wrote in message
...

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...


Your model of the Big Bang is flawed; you're picturing
everything rushing out of an explosion into pre-existing
space. The BB was an explosion (expansion) of space
itself, occurred everywhere (everywhere that existed) at
once, and there was no center.

OK, I'll bite on this one: if there was NO space before the BB, what was
there instead ??

As far as we know, nothing. Our theories do not describe
anything that preceded the BB, nor what, if anything, the
primordial universe might have been embedded. What the
theory does say is that at the instant of the beginning
of the BB, all of spacetime (all three spaceial dimensions
and time) were extremely compact.


The expansion was so fast that light from events that
happened even relatively close to one another could
not reach each other since the space between expanded
at many times the speed of light itself.

That's been termed as "hyper-inflation", since there was nothing to impede
the outward expansion into the existing, infinite VOID of space!!

Again, it was space itself expanding. Contrary to
what may seem common sense, it wasn't expanding into
any pre-existing void.


We're seeing light that left those (then) "nearby" events just
arriving now. So when we look out into space in *any*
direction, we're looking back in time towards the Big Bang.

Once again, you cannot shoot a gun and then run fast enough to where the
bullet finally hits the ground, spin around and take a photograph of the
muzzle flsh.

In the beginning space was compact, but even so all points
were surrounded by an infinite amount of other points.
Think of it as being very, very dense. When space expanded,
every point was surrounded by events that were carried
away from them by the expansion. The BB occurred *everywhere*
around every point that made up the primordial universe.
So it's not necessary to "run and catch up" to see the BB
from any given point -- the BB surrounded every point.


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.

Nope. The cosmic background radiation is much more uniform
than the clumpy matter concentrations of galaxies, and
matches the curve of black body radiation very precisely.

COBE determined that the background radiation is indeed NOT uniform, but
rather blotchy. Even though that difference is measured in fractions of a
degree K, nonetheless it matches the "clumpiness" of galaxy cluster
distribution throughout the observable universe.

Maybe you should revisit the figures. What's the magnitude
of the "blotchiness"? I think you'll find that the background
is remarkably uniform, and that the deviations are very, very
tiny in temperature.