Comments on: Most distant galaxy shines light on early universe

By: Marlena Heidenreich

Marlena Heidenreich — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:21:52 +0000

98% of astronomical guesswork, and 99% of accepted astronomical “knowledge” is inaccurate; But even in the error is much interesting information; Earthlings understand very little about everything, even in that is complete incompletion;

Humility is understanding their are intelligent beings who do have perfect understanding, and one with complete understanding, and One who is understanding;

Just saying….

Keep working on it, or be patient and try a different basis of understanding; Such as humility, love and mercy;

By: cectGrare

cectGrare — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:21:08 +0000

StcaPOKS [url=http://canadagoosejacketsuomi.info/]Canada Goose Trillium Parka[/url]
gjlrDMNvg http://monclerschweizonlineshop.info/
ubxwhcnylx [url=http://jordanscarpeitalia.info/#2624]Air Jordan Shop[/url]
GXQqUyxbj kfkjsh [url=http://canadagoosereajacka.info/]Canada Goose VÃ¤st[/url]
CfqKSBWHifz QxgtALFO [url=http://canadagooseonlineshopnederland.info/]Canada Goose Online Shop[/url]
fdlvDWKgl BknmBFPF http://jordanshopuk.info/
cgjyMDZyf

By: Naveen

Naveen — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:59:05 +0000

Thanks, Redman – appreciate the source.

By: Redman

Redman — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:42:57 +0000

According to inflation theory, during the first second, the universe expanded at speeds such that two points would recede from each other at speeds well in excess of the speed of light. This was before any particles formed, so no object was traveling faster than c.
This theory is necessary to explain the “horizon problem”, the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation. As a result, the universe has a radius greater than its age in light years.
Just read this in “The Hidden Reality” by the theoretical physicist Brian Greene. Assuming space is flat, the radius of the observable universe is thought to be in the 40B ly range. (Greene, p. 28) This object would be right around that distance.

By: Naveen

Naveen — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 04:28:20 +0000

Problem?,

“Speed is relative” – Can you explain this further ?
Relative to the point of the Big bang, to get this far from it (i.e. 12.7 billion light years away), our speed would have to be about 93% of the speed of light – this is improbable. What’s the explanation ?

By: Problem?

Problem? — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 03:43:24 +0000

Speed is relative. What is the paradox?

By: Lew Fisher

Lew Fisher — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:32:48 +0000

Ditto to to Naveen’s comments above. Light which has travelled 13.2 billion light years prior to reaching our lens does just not compute logically for me. Naveen has described the apparent paradox well in the discourse above.

By: Naveen

Naveen — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:46:29 +0000

Did the Big Bang occur at a single point ?

The light is said to have left this galaxy some 500 million years after the big bang – fine.
The galaxy therefore must have been no further than 500 million light years from the point of the big bang since it could not have traveled faster than the speed of light (according to the theory of relativity).

Assuming that the galaxy moved in a direction diametrically opposite to the direction that “we” moved after the big bang, “we” would be 13.2-0.5=12.7 billion light years from the point where Big Bang occurred (assuming that it did indeed occur at a single point).

Now, since the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago & happened at a point 12.7 billion light years away, “we” would have to have traveled a minimum of 12.7 billion light years in “our” 13.7 billion year existence.

“Our” average speed for this “flight” would have to be some 93% of the speed of light !!!!

So, is it really true that “we” have been traveling at an average speed of 93% of the speed of light since the Big Bang ?
Or is there some other explanation for this anomaly ?