Distance is a timeline

[Dratonia]

So, if the farther something is from us that we can see the older it is, does that mean that looking at things an ever increasing distance away is like looking at a timeline of the universe?

 

[Helio]

So, if the farther something is from us that we can see the older it is,

I suspect you mean "younger", not older.

The lightning analogy helps since we experience this. When we see lightning strike in the distance, we can count the seconds then divide by 5 to get the approx. distance in miles. We experience light as instantaneous on Earth but sound is much slower (~ 1125 fps).

Light traveling the vastness of space from almost any distance, even planets, takes time. So, like the thunder, what we experience (see) took time to get here, IOW, we are experiencing something from its past. Sunlight we see came from the Sun about 8 minutes ago, so we can only see the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago. Light from nearby stars takes years to reach us. Andromeda's light is 2.3 million years old. Many quasars take billions of years.

All those objects allow us to see things as they took place a very long time ago, which helps scientists get a better idea of how things developed in the ancient past.

 

[Dratonia]

I suspect you mean "younger", not older.

Light traveling the vastness of space from almost any distance, even planets, takes time. So, like the thunder, what we experience (see) took time to get here, IOW, we are experiencing something from its past. Sunlight we see came from the Sun about 8 minutes ago, so we can only see the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago. Light from nearby stars takes years to reach us. Andromeda's light is 2.3 million years old. Many quasars take billions of years.

That's what I meant, that the farther away we see something, the older that thing is.

 

[Helio]

That's what I meant, that the farther away we see something, the older that thing is.

I see, since we see it when it was younger, you mean it's older than it looks. Kinda like me.

 

[Dratonia]

I see, since we see it when it was younger, you mean it's older than it looks. Kinda like me.

Nice

 

[Atlan0001]

The article itself is excellent. But stare into the chaos of the illustration at the beginning of the article and think about the real of "background" (one of the reals of "background"):

Gravitational Waves Should Permanently Distort Space-Time | Quanta Magazine

As the saying goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words." And more and better realizations in artistries -- for the rest of us -- are coming to the fore these days. Oh well, it takes me the "thousand words" to draw the pictures until I see the illustrations and animations such as this one (that illustrate what I've already seen in the mind's eye).
------------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.

 

[Pogo]

I think that means, as distance increases, the light from the object is older as compared to now, but, younger as compared to the age of the universe.

 

[Atlan0001]

I think that means, as distance increases, the light from the object is older as compared to now, but, younger as compared to the age of the universe.

Nah! The light from the object is increasingly younger (-) from the very instant of emission; its space-time frame will aways be younger (-), as compared to now (t=0) and both the distantly non-local -- unobservable -- object (t=0) and the local observer (t=0) (quantumly entangled across a flat of space-time you might say). But always older (+) as compared to the age of the universe (infinity base (t=1 (-1))). The originating 'wild' (-) is always titanically more mass-energetically youthful than the universe's 'lawns' (+) continuously being produced of and from it, which is why there will always be the inexorable reversal toward return to it (the 'wild').

A traveler (t=0) will always cross that "distance" in space observably ascending (+) in time, space-time traveling an observable road -- as the traveler (t=0) travels -- the object subjectively younger here (-) to the object objectively older there (+).

The universe horizon (t=1(-1)), the traveler (t=0) will always notice, changes not at all (t=1(-1)), thus his departure point observably descends (-) in space-time toward it with all the traveler's gain (+) in space-time from it. The traveler (t=0), though having ascended (+) in space-time, in time, to some destination (t=0) that was un-observably futuristic (+) relative (-) to the traveler (t=0), is then on the younger (-) side of the space-time frame of light now relative to the un-observable departure point (+) observably distantly (-) in the recessionary direction of the background horizon of the universe (t=1(-1)).

The light, within its own space-time frame, only grows younger relative to the space-time frame of the emitting object growing older, as distance in space-time increases between the two (the greater grows the difference (motion, curvature, change, chaos. . .), the greater would grow the redshift, so to speak). Both relativity (according to logician-mathematician Kurt Godel, among others) and Quantum Mechanics (according to many) allows certain forms of (space) time travel (space-time progression) in reverse (regression).
-------------------------------

It's a multi-dimensional Multiverse Universe.

 

[iconoclast]

So, if the farther something is from us that we can see the older it is, does that mean that looking at things an ever increasing distance away is like looking at a timeline of the universe?

Yes, surprisingly enough that is the way it is. And to tie the Webb into this, it is optimized for infrared observations, and the further back in time/space you look, the more redshifted the light is, in astronomy of objects close to the Big Bang, from visible to IR; thus Webb.

 

[Atlan0001]

Every time, every single time, we've managed a sharper look into the light from the far background of the universe, the farther back and away from us the BC/BB event horizon has been pushed and the larger the universe and all its content was found to be (observed to be). The JWT should be no different, except if it works as it should work, the push back in event horizon toward infinity should be huge and the multiplication of content (galaxies, stars, clusters, other entities . . . bubble universes) this side of the push back revealed, titanic.

Hopefully the boiling cauldron wall of motion, curvature, change, and so on, the horizon wall that approaches infinities of interference and breakdown of relativity, will not be finally run into. If quantum entanglement works as well for time, as predicted for space, the push back of the wall will continue, this time big time.

 

[Wolfshadw]

If you people cannot play nice, then I'll take it away.

Wolfshadw
Moderator

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Relativity... Einstein explained it as simply as he could, and It governs our view of reality. However, I'm beginning to think that no-one studies it nowadays, which is a shame as we exist within a relativistic universe.

I'm currently recuperating after a bout of Covid, and have noticed that Catastrophe is rather conspicuous due to his absence, I'm hoping that he is well, as I am now fit enough to have that long overdue chat about about the nature of space-time. If you see this post Cat, please respond.

@Catastrophe

 

[Wolfshadw]

If you see this post Cat, please respond.

@Curiosity killed the cat
You can always use the @ + user name to ping someone. It will show a notification on the bell symbol on their page in the upper right.

-Wolf sends