Oldest objects in the Universe!!!!!

"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

"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
...
"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


I think it's very presumptious of us to assume the laws of physics that
apply in our observations, are constant right throughout the universe.

In message , Whisper
writes

"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
t...

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


I think it's very presumptious of us to assume the laws of physics that
apply in our observations, are constant right throughout the universe.


But it's the only way to work, unless you have very good evidence to the
contrary.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

During a perfect moment of peace at Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:23:52 +1100,
"Whisper" interrupted with:

I think it's very presumptious of us to assume the laws of physics that
apply in our observations, are constant right throughout the universe.

It's worse not to. Think of it like this, if physical laws do change
then there have to zones where constants are different and barrier
regions around these. They would, surely, be observable as things like
light spectra from stars would be different.

All manner of strange effects result from laws changing. We don't
observe this so assume the laws here also hold billions of light years
away.
----------------------------------------------
Bring me my Broadsword and clear understanding.

"Dave Barlow" wrote in message
...
During a perfect moment of peace at Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:23:52 +1100,
"Whisper" interrupted with:

I think it's very presumptious of us to assume the laws of physics that
apply in our observations, are constant right throughout the universe.

It's worse not to. Think of it like this, if physical laws do change
then there have to zones where constants are different and barrier
regions around these. They would, surely, be observable as things like
light spectra from stars would be different.

All manner of strange effects result from laws changing. We don't
observe this so assume the laws here also hold billions of light years
away.
----------------------------------------------
Bring me my Broadsword and clear understanding.



I doubt our 'laws' are universal. In a way it's like religion - ie an
explanation for the unknown that makes some sort of sense. Problem is the
universe is simply beyond human comprehension, & always will be. We'll be
long extinct before we make any serious headway into unlocking the
mysteries. Our concept of the universe is through our senses - when in
reality there are forces that we can't see or comprehend.

We think in terms of 'beginnings' & 'endings' (life & death), when really
neither make sense. The fact it makes no sense means we are, I don't want
to say retarded, but just not capable of getting the answer. Answer to
what? Why does there have to be a question (human failing)? If the
universe is 14 billion yrs old, what was there 20 billion yrs before that?
Or a trillion yrs before that. The concept of 'nothing' is meaningless....

So I conclude we will never know, but should endeavour to understand as much
as possible & enjoy the short time we have.......

"Whisper" wrote in message
...
So I conclude we will never know, but should endeavour to understand as
much
as possible & enjoy the short time we have......

Okay, then back to the original question. How can we on Earth be (or were)
further from another object than light could travel since the big bang.

Dark Helmet

"Whisper" wrote in message ...


I doubt our 'laws' are universal. In a way it's like religion - ie an
explanation for the unknown that makes some sort of sense. Problem is the
universe is simply beyond human comprehension, & always will be. We'll be
long extinct before we make any serious headway into unlocking the
mysteries. Our concept of the universe is through our senses - when in
reality there are forces that we can't see or comprehend.

I think you're taking it on faith that we cannot understand
the universe!

Science is different from religion in that it demands facts,
and its adherents are not averse to looking into mysteries
for prosaic explanations.

Measurements of the fine structure constant using light
emitted in the early universe shows that the laws of
physics have been the same since then (at least within
experimental error). The fine structure constant turns out
to be a very delicate measure of this.

"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
t...
"Whisper" wrote in message
...
So I conclude we will never know, but should endeavour to understand as
much
as possible & enjoy the short time we have......

Okay, then back to the original question. How can we on Earth be (or were)
further from another object than light could travel since the big bang.

Because space expanded. The distance between distant objects
separated at rates far in excess of the speed of light.

The oldest object might be that 3 billion sun mass BH I read about.
Bert

He should also remember, the earth is as far as age of the Unv. goes, very very
young.

Unv. = 13+ billion years

Earth = 4.5 billion years


--
"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

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
t...
"Whisper" wrote in message
...
So I conclude we will never know, but should endeavour to understand as
much
as possible & enjoy the short time we have......

Okay, then back to the original question. How can we on Earth be (or were)
further from another object than light could travel since the big bang.

Because space expanded. The distance between distant objects
separated at rates far in excess of the speed of light.




---
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