Faster than light Vs Seeing back to the Big Bang

Hi All,

I could be barking up the wrong tree here but doesn't looking back at
the Big Bang and the theory of not being able to travel faster than
light contradict each other... here's my reason why:

OK.... we were discussing how Astronomers are trying to see back to
the big bang with the ol telescopes right....

OK.... there is a throey that says you cannot travel faster than the
speed of light.... ok

So.... they also say that the beginning of the universe started from
the big bang and therefore all matter was ejected from a central
point....

So... when the bang happenned the light from that big bang also
travelled outwards from that central point.

Therefore, in order to be able to see back in time (by looking at
light that took billions of years to reach us) must mean that when
the bang occurred, matter was ejected out faster than light
itself.... otherwise, how would we be able to look back at it!

Imagine 2 people on a playing field standing next to each other. 1 of
the 2 people flashes a torch on and off. The other person standing
next to the torch will see the light straight away. Now the same
thing happens again but this time the person standing next to the
torch is asked to view the same flash on the other side of the field.
In order to be able to see that flash that person woold have to run
faster than light to the other side ofd the field in order to see
that flash arrive. If the run was slower than light, when the person
arrived at the other side they would see nothing as the light from the
flash has already passed that point.

I hope I am getting my point across.... does anyone have an
explanation?

Many thanks,

Aaron Townsend

*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*

Hi All,

I could be barking up the wrong tree here but doesn't looking back at
the Big Bang and the theory of not being able to travel faster than
light contradict each other... here's my reason why:

OK.... we were discussing how Astronomers are trying to see back to
the big bang with the ol telescopes right....

OK.... there is a throey that says you cannot travel faster than the
speed of light.... ok

So.... they also say that the beginning of the universe started from
the big bang and therefore all matter was ejected from a central
point....

So... when the bang happenned the light from that big bang also
travelled outwards from that central point.

Therefore, in order to be able to see back in time (by looking at
light that took billions of years to reach us) must mean that when
the bang occurred, matter was ejected out faster than light
itself.... otherwise, how would we be able to look back at it!

Imagine 2 people on a playing field standing next to each other. 1 of
the 2 people flashes a torch on and off. The other person standing
next to the torch will see the light straight away. Now the same
thing happens again but this time the person standing next to the
torch is asked to view the same flash on the other side of the field.
In order to be able to see that flash that person woold have to run
faster than light to the other side ofd the field in order to see
that flash arrive. If the run was slower than light, when the person
arrived at the other side they would see nothing as the light from the
flash has already passed that point.

I hope I am getting my point across.... does anyone have an
explanation?

Many thanks,
Aaron Townsend

Please explain.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

"Atownsend" ha scritto nel
messaggio ...
snip
Therefore, in order to be able to see back in time (by looking at
light that took billions of years to reach us) must mean that when
the bang occurred, matter was ejected out faster than light
itself.... otherwise, how would we be able to look back at it!

No problem, at Big Bang the space expansion was orders of magnitude greater
than speed of light.
Light speed is a limit inside our universe.
But the universe itself can expand without any speed limit.

Luigi Caselli

Hi Aaron Glad luigi came up with Guth's inflation theory that took
place the first trillionth of a second of the BB. There are two effects
that are starting to tell us we might never get close to the great heat
and light of the BB. First light dims obeying the inverse square
law.(light bulb 9 times dimmer just 3 feet from its source) Second
is space between objects at great distances is expanding at an
accelerating rate. The universe might not be considered
finite(even if it is) because it could be so very large. Read a few
moon's ago that if the universe is older and bigger than 25 billion LY
than it should be regarded as infinite (go figure) Bert

"Atownsend" wrote in message
...
snip
So.... they also say that the beginning of the universe started from
the big bang and therefore all matter was ejected from a central
point....
snip

If "they" are saying this. "They" are mistaken. The BB exploded to create
everything. It did not explode from a single point and eject outwards.

BV.

"CeeBee" wrote in message
.83...
lid (Atownsend) wrote in
alt.astronomy:

OK.... we were discussing how Astronomers are trying to see back to
the big bang with the ol telescopes right....

OK.... there is a throey that says you cannot travel faster than the
speed of light.... ok

As far as theory goes, nothing within the universe can travel faster
than light. Of course that's no rule for the expanding universe, or
better - the creation of space itself.

So.... they also say that the beginning of the universe started from
the big bang and therefore all matter was ejected from a central
point....

There is no central point in the universe. There is only the universe -
it's all there is, and it's _in_ nothing.

well, that we do not know. It may be embedded into something else.

It didn't expand

it did, according to theory

nor does it
expand into something, so there's no central point.

that conclusion does not follow from the arguments you gave, although the conclusion is true.

--
md

CeeBee wrote:

snip
[...] The name "big bang" is a great marketing
tool, but a lousy description of the theory.


It was originally a dismissive trivialization, coined by one of the
theory's early critics. IIRC it was Fred Hoyle, proponent of the
"steady state" theory.

--
Odysseus

"CeeBee" wrote in message
. 6.67...
"md" not given to avoid spam wrote in alt.astronomy:


well, that we do not know. It may be embedded into something else.

For the description of the properties of the Big Bang theory this is
irrelevant.

well, you mentioned it.....

that conclusion does not follow from the arguments you gave,

For the Big Bang theory it does. "Expanding into" is a description based
on physics only valid for our (own and current) universe.

please explain this?

There's no way to describe that "outside" in "inside" physical terms.

I was referring to your conclusion that there is no central point inside our universe

The question whether our universe is expanding "ito something else" is
irrelevant, as we are not able to observe nor describe this "something
else" in physical terms based on current theory. We therefore cannot know
the properties of such a supposed "expansion", nor if we can descibe it as
an expansion in the first place.

yes, I know all that, what's your point?

The _absence_ of proof of an "outside" doesn't lead to a relevant
conclusion about the _possibility_ of something outside. Thus we should
only descibe the physical properties we can prove based on current theory.

And that means that the expansion of space can only be described as the
creation of new time and space, and not of creation of space from a
central point in the middle of something else.

I know and understand all that, thanks, but I fail to see why this is a response to my posting.
--
md

"CeeBee" wrote in message
. 6.83...
"md" not given to avoid spam wrote in alt.astronomy:


I know and understand all that, thanks, but I fail to see why this is
a response to my posting. --


It's a good idea to actually understand something before _claiming_ that
you understand something.

obviously you don't know me, and again I fail to see why this is a response to my posting

--
md
www.xs4all.nl/~martlian

[cbchester]
I know and understand all that, thanks, but I fail to see why this is
a response to my posting. --

It's a good idea to actually understand something before _claiming_ that
you understand something.

Nice lines.



_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A