Light is much faster than you think

If light really only traveled at 186, 000 miles per second, as it is given
to do, then...we would be able to see the Big Bang in our finest telescopes.

That is because all those galaxies, far far away, are not only moving away
from us, their image would be moving toward the point of origin of the
universe, since we would be looking across billions of years.

But we don't see the Big Bang.

Where is it?

On Oct 8, 7:04*pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
If light really only traveled at 186, 000 miles per second, as it is given
to do, then...we would be able to see the Big Bang in our finest telescopes.

That is because all those galaxies, far far away, are not only moving away
from us, their image would be moving toward the point of origin of the
universe, since we would be looking across billions of years.

But we don't see the Big Bang.

Where is it?


The universe is thought to have been opaque for about 380 thousand
years after the Big Bang. That's why we can't quite see back that
far.

Double-A

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message ica...
If light really only traveled at 186, 000 miles per second, as it is given
to do, then...we would be able to see the Big Bang in our finest telescopes.

That is because all those galaxies, far far away, are not only moving away
from us, their image would be moving toward the point of origin of the
universe, since we would be looking across billions of years.

But we don't see the Big Bang.

Where is it?

Actually we do see it. At something around 14 billion light years out,
redshifts become immeasurably high and nothing else is visible. Only
radio telescopes have this kind of reach.

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message ica...
If light really only traveled at 186, 000 miles per second, as it is given to do, then...we would be able to see the Big Bang in
our finest telescopes.

That is because all those galaxies, far far away, are not only moving away from us, their image would be moving toward the point
of origin of the universe, since we would be looking across billions of years.

But we don't see the Big Bang.

Where is it?

Uh, the galaxies did not exist at the moment of the "Big Bang",
nor did any stars, planets or much of anything else for that matter.
As the Universe expanded these bodies developed.

You must also realize that our galaxy (relative location of the matter
that created it, that is) at the time was also inside of the BB, and as
the universe expanded the position of our galaxy expanded with the
rest of the universe, along with all of the other points in the universe
and any light emissions generated by the BB. All light traveling
toward the center of the universe was already at the center of the
universe, hence, all light traveled away from the center of the universe.

All we can see now is the background radiation of the BB.

Reflections, if you will.

"Nightcrawler" wrote in message
...


"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
ica...
If light really only traveled at 186, 000 miles per second, as it is
given to do, then...we would be able to see the Big Bang in our finest
telescopes.

That is because all those galaxies, far far away, are not only moving
away from us, their image would be moving toward the point of origin of
the universe, since we would be looking across billions of years.

But we don't see the Big Bang.

Where is it?

Uh, the galaxies did not exist at the moment of the "Big Bang",
nor did any stars, planets or much of anything else for that matter.
As the Universe expanded these bodies developed.

Maybe not whole galaxies existed at the Big Bang, but something did, or,
more accurately, everything did. And if everything was there, we surely
would be able to see something if light is truly as slow as people think it
is.



You must also realize that our galaxy (relative location of the matter
that created it, that is) at the time was also inside of the BB, and as
the universe expanded the position of our galaxy expanded with the
rest of the universe, along with all of the other points in the universe
and any light emissions generated by the BB.

You evidenly have the view of the central point of existence as some kind of
galaxy maker, which over the ages just occasionally spits out another
galaxy, or more accurately, another proto galaxy.

It defies the popular notion of the Big Bang, however. Like it or not, the
notion paints a picture of a gargantuan explosion.

And it is humorously like rabbits coming out of a hole.



All light traveling
toward the center of the universe was already at the center of the
universe, hence, all light traveled away from the center of the universe.

All we can see now is the background radiation of the BB.

Wait till we get stronger telescopes.


Reflections, if you will.


Or images.

wrote in message
...
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
ica...
If light really only traveled at 186, 000 miles per second, as it is
given
to do, then...we would be able to see the Big Bang in our finest
telescopes.

That is because all those galaxies, far far away, are not only moving
away
from us, their image would be moving toward the point of origin of the
universe, since we would be looking across billions of years.

But we don't see the Big Bang.

Where is it?

Actually we do see it. At something around 14 billion light years out,
redshifts become immeasurably high and nothing else is visible. Only
radio telescopes have this kind of reach.

We hear the Big Bang then. Must have been quite a release of energy.

"Double-A" wrote in message
...
On Oct 8, 7:04 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
If light really only traveled at 186, 000 miles per second, as it is given
to do, then...we would be able to see the Big Bang in our finest
telescopes.

That is because all those galaxies, far far away, are not only moving away
from us, their image would be moving toward the point of origin of the
universe, since we would be looking across billions of years.

But we don't see the Big Bang.

Where is it?


The universe is thought to have been opaque for about 380 thousand
years after the Big Bang. That's why we can't quite see back that
far.

**380, 000 years isn't very long in astronomical terms.

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message netamerica...

Maybe not whole galaxies existed at the Big Bang, but something did, or, more accurately, everything did. And if everything was
there, we surely would be able to see something if light is truly as slow as people think it is.

I'll preface things by stating that I got interrupted a few times while
trying to come up with this gem. Take it for what it is worth since
I scatter brained on it. It's late and I'm off to sleep.


You are thinking of it wrong. When people say that we are looking into
the past, when observing the universe, that's because of the length
of time it took the light to travel to our current location. What we are
seeing is things as they were at that time, at that location. This does
not infer that if given strong enough optics that we could see into the
past, as in seeing the beginning.

The energy released with the BB was throughout the entire universe,
as small as it was at that point in time, for that fraction of time. What
we observe today is "past" that point in time, for any observable light
was already flowing through space at 186,000 miles per second, but
the distance between points was only a fraction of what it is today.

Let's put it this way. Let's say the BB just happened, and magically
you already have everything that is currently around you. Office, house,
library, wherever you are sitting to read this text. Now, let's say that
there is a lamp on in the space that you are in, and that this lamp is the
light of the BB. The lamp goes out. No more light from the BB. For
a moment there, everything was lit up, but no more.

Now the room is dark and you cannot see anything. Then, after a few
moments you notice lights appear all around you, but at a distance.
Then you realize that the walls are further away, the monitor is further
away, and everything, now that you can see things, is moving further
away.

Still, you cannot see the light of the BB because it already happened.

Now, let's say that the monitor was the Milky Way galaxy, and that the
PC was any other galaxy. Fast forward in time and put them at the
current distance between the Milky Way Galaxy and that other galaxy
that you chose. Both galaxies traveled through space, and space itself
expanded with both galaxies within.

Still, you cannot see the light of the BB because it was already observed.

Now, this does not take into account other facets of the expansion of the
universe, I just hope that it helps you understand the rudimentary basics
of why we cannot "see" the Big Bang. Now, if technology exist, and it
becomes possible to see the origination point of the universe, then we
will be able to observe that space, at the time that it was, relative to
our current time, minus the time it took for that information to get to us.
If that happens to be close to the BB, that would be pretty cool. I guess
it all depends on how large this universe really is.

Mark We get the EM from the BB as space heat. At the first 300,000
years of the BB it had temperates millions of times greater than the
sun. It has cooled to 2.7 F Its one of the great features that there
was a BB. Reality is and very hard to believe but Gamow figured out
space temperature years before it was measured. Gamow was very
clever,and I have him much like Feynman They liked to make people
laugh,and so do I Bert



2.7 °F is 257 Kelvin. The temperature of the “known� Universe is 2.725 Kelvin. Kelvin vs. Fahrenheit vs. Celsius: