Why is it so ??

[TrevorW]

Ok for you science geeks out there answer this one for me

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ack-hole-disk/

why can objects be further away that the estimated time of the big bang

[Terry B]

inflation

[mill (Martin)]

Because the big bang time is still a estimate

[Erg]

Dare I say "Balloon Analogy"

Erg

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

In my thinking wouldn't the big bang spread out in all directions therefore we would see stuff that is further away than the big bang point

[Nightshift]

Easy, the big bang theory is just that, theory, not proven science. not everyone subscribes to the BBT, I for one dont. And what about this statement, "between 60 and 180 billion miles across". LOL, well what is it, 60 or 180 coz just one billion miles is pretty dang big. The whole docco is full of speculation and little science, it talks of black holes as proven fact, it measures temperatures but can not measure the size of the object to within 120 billion miles across. Anyway, everyone knows that the universe is only 6000 years old.

On another post here today someone posed the question about Australians and science, well when countless billions of tax payers dollars are spent and we get specualtive nonsense like this is it any wonder? Maybe mankind could spend a few extra bucks on cancer research instead of organisations like red kite having to beg for money just to make sick children happy and put an end to this horrific disease. or maybe we can just keep spending it on photos of the cosmos and speculate about what the hell it is we photographed. Makes me scratch my head in wonderment.

[Erg]

True indeed that the BBT is by definition a theory. Nightshift, how does your favored cosmology run?

Erg

[Nightshift]

Originally Posted by Erg

True indeed that the BBT is by definition a theory. Nightshift, how does your favored cosmology run?

Erg

I'm not sure I understand the question. How do I perceive the Cosmos? I dont have any theories, but then I dont have the desire to question it, it is what it is, it has always been and will always be. I marvel at nature and therefore love astronomy purely as an observational passtime.

[OICURMT]

Fyi


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ack-hole-disk/

Originally Posted by update from Wired

update: Many of the commentors below have wondered how this quasar can be 18.5 billion light-years away when the universe is only 13.5 billion years old (and therefore nothing should be farther than the distance that light would travel in that time, namely 13.5 billion light-years). This is not a mistake. Though nothing traveling in the universe can move faster than light speed, the expansion of the universe itself can happen at any speed (including faster than light). Just one of the mind blowing facts about this strange universe we live in.


In the 13.5 billion years since the big bang, space has expanded so much that the farthest object we can detect are in fact more than 30 billion light years away. You can find out more about the quasar at this link and you can calculate distance to objects at high redshifts using this online calculator.

[bartman (Bart)]

Originally Posted by OICURMT

Fyi


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ack-hole-disk/

Cheers and ditto

Bartman

[deejayvee (David)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

why can objects be further away that the estimated time of the big bang

This exact question has puzzled me for ages. I was able to ask and get it answered recently, but what a mind-blowing concept

[Robh (Rob)]

Although light travels at a constant speed of around 300000km/sec in a vacuum, its actual travel distance is further as the space it travels through is expanding.


Here's a simple analogy.
I leave a jetty and head down stream in a boat which has an average speed of 20kph in still water. After 2 hours, I have travelled 40km. Right!

Wrong! The river is flowing at 10kph, so the total distance travelled in 2 hours is actually 60km.

Of course, space is not actually flowing but it is stretching or expanding, but the effect is somewhat similar.

Regards, Rob

[TrevorW]

So if space is expanding at the speed of light then a particle leaving the point of origin at near the speed of light would be near enough twice as far away from the point of origin (ie: the jetty) after 2 hrs and four times further away from another particle travelling in the opposite direction

[Baddad (Marty)]

Hi Trevor, Rob and Others.

If an object happens to be 18.5 billion light years away, I would expect it was not yet visible. Seeing that the universe is around 14 billion years old.

This is to consider what the theory states. That in the beginning it was not an actual explosion. The universe was a tiny object and within milliseconds it became something similar in size to what it is now. Galaxies did not travel out from a point. The galaxies were suddenly in place and then began the expansion process.

What I would like to know is how was the accepted age of the Universe initially calculated?

The BBT leaves a lot to explain.

Cheers

[TrevorW]

Marty the report states they are in fact viewing objects out to 30 billion light years

I don't believe galaxies where suddenly in place taking the view of planetary formation I would wonder if this wasn't the same process for the formation of galaxies

lumps of matter coalescing into galactic groups spreading out from the point of origin

wheels within wheels so to speak

[Baddad (Marty)]

Hi Trevor,
This point of origin intrigues me as well. The explanation of it states that before the BB the universe was a tiny object and there was nothing else in existance.

Something caused the object to "bang" into clumps of matter that spread out. If the universe did not exist over 14 billion years ago then what was it that caused the sudden expansion. Something else had to come along and start the reaction.

If it happens to be intrinsic, which would mean the universe is in a constant transitional state. It was a tiny object at first now expanding in its present state of existance. What next? Its speculation, yes. It does help to accept the theories about the universe.

[TrevorW]

Maybe it wasn't a case of something from nothing who knows, I rarely ponder the formation of our Universe, it's just to mind blowing to think about I leave that one up to the egg heads who get paid to do so

[Robh (Rob)]

Marty is right in that there is no observable point you can allocate as the origin of the Big Bang. At the Big Bang, space inflated almost instantly to an enormous size, dispersing energy (particles) that later formed galaxies and stars.
When you look in any direction you can see galaxies that were formed billions of years ago. In other words, the "origin" of the Big Bang is everywhere.

There is no centre of the universe. But in every direction, galaxies are receding from us due to the initial momentum of the Big Bang and due to the continued expansion of space. In a sense, the Earth is the centre of our observable universe with everything on the large scale moving away from us.

There is a point at which galaxies moving away from us faster than the speed of light will disappear from view. The light from theses galaxies will no longer reach us. This is called the Cosmic Event Horizon. A signal from an event happening now at more than 16 billion light years away will never reach us.

Our observable universe is only a small part of what we can see of the whole universe.

The age of the universe is about 13.75 billion years. The radius of the observable universe is estimated to be about 46.5 billion light years.

[Jen]

ouch my head hurts just trying to think about it
Some crazy theories go on in my head sometimes but i must keep them to myself or i will be locked up hahahha

[TrevorW]

Jen please share your thoughts PM me if you like

Would this imply that we don't have linear expansion but exponential of the Universe.

Theorists also say that the universe is not static in that mini little bangs are happening elsewhere forming new galactic groups randy isn't it