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?
Keep up to date with the Space calendar 2022: Rocket launches, sky events, missions and more!
I suspect you mean "younger", not older.So, if the farther something is from us that we can see the older it is,
That's what I meant, that the farther away we see something, the older that thing is.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.
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').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.
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.