New Theory Suggests Start of Universe

AP via Yahoo! ^ | January 8, 2002 | Paul Recer

[Darth Reagan]

Here's my question. Assuming that the farthest thing away from us is 14 billion light years distant, and the universe is 15 billion years old, then how fast do stars and other matter have to travel to get that far away? If this object that's 14 billion ly away from us is 7 billion light years from the originating point of the Big Bang, then that matter had to travel at almost half the speed of light to get there. Of course, I'm assuming that this is the maximum distance of any object from us, and I'm not sure that's the case

I've never seen this addressed...maybe my math and assumptions are faulty. Any help?

[Darth Reagan]

Paging. I suspect you may know the answer to my question above.....

[VadeRetro]

If this object that's 14 billion ly away from us is 7 billion light years from the originating point of the Big Bang, then that matter had to travel at almost half the speed of light to get there.

The whole universe was contained in the Big Bang. It's not like the debris of an explosion expanding through space, rushing away from some central point. The whole space was once confined to a small point. The whole space is expanding. The Big Bang is everywhere, which is why the Cosmic Microwave Background comes from all over the sky.

[QueenCityAllan]

"And God said, 'Let there be light'"

'Nuff said.

[Darth Reagan]

So, its about space expanding, not objects moving -- and the objects are "attached" to a certain point in space (and, I suppose, move relative to the universe near their spot of "attachment"). That makes more sense.

[Consort]

I don't want to talk about it.

[VadeRetro]

You got it. The recessional velocities come from the expansion of the space itself. There could be things far enough away that they are receding from us at faster than light speed. We will never see such objects, since their spectra are basically red-shifted to zero energy.

[abandon]

I don't know if objects are "attached" to points of space. Rather, the space "within" objects is so small compared to the universe as a whole that the expansion of the space is undectable.

[Andy from Beaverton]

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[jwalsh07]

Lanzetta also used images of nearby star fields as a yardstick for stellar density and intensity to conclude that about 90 percent of the light in the very early universe was not detected by the Hubble. When this missing light was factored into the three dimensional perspective, it showed that the peak of star formation came just 500 million years after the Big Bang and has been declining since

Is this what's known in scientific circles as the fudge factor?

[NC_Libertarian]

What's beyond space?

[VRWC_minion]

And God said:

Be light.

[VadeRetro]

What's beyond space?

You can't get from here to there.

[NC_Libertarian]

Is that what he's saying? I think objects move through space, even if space is expanding. So are there any theories that space is infinite? Are there boundaries? Or I've heard before that if you travel long enough (a *very* long time of course) in one direction you would end up at your starting point.

[College Repub]

Big Bang is compadible with Creation Theory. It's merely a scientific explanation for God's work.

[Scally Wag]

"And God said, 'Let there be light'"

And there was nothing, but it could be seen.

[NC_Libertarian]

God created a reality of natural laws in meticulous balance. It's interesting to ponder.

[College Repub]

In fact, the more and more we discover about the origins of the universe and civilization, the more accurate Genesis appears to be. Science and religion go hand in hand.

[jwalsh07]

Or I've heard before that if you travel long enough (a *very* long time of course) in one direction you would end up at your starting point.

A lot of truth to what you say here, it happened to me often during a misspent youth.