Massive Distant Galaxy Upsets Theories

[benclark]

I recently read an artical 'Massive distant galaxy upsets theories' by Robert Roy Britt at space.com.<br />Its says that the Universe is about 13.6 Billion years old.<br />The galaxy that he talks about is 12.8 Billion light years away.<br />That does not make since!<br />If the light from the galaxy took 12.8 billion years to get here, then the light we are seeing had to be 12.8 billion light years away when it started.<br />If this galaxy is a product of the big bang, then that means that the entire galaxy had to travel a distance of 12.8 billion light years in about 800 million years.<br />That does not seem possible. Does it???? That would mean that the galaxy was traveling much faster than the speed of light.<br />My point is, that what ever object we look at, it had to be in its current observable location at the time that its light started traveling towards us.<br />If an object was traveling at such a high rate of speed that it could cross 12.8 billion light years in 800 million years, then it would currently be much farther than 13.6 billion light years away. <br />That would make the Universe much, much bigger.<br />If the object could not have traveled 12.8 billion light years in 800 million years, far more likely, then the universe HAS to be much much older than 13.6 billion years.<br />I hope this question makes since.<br />How can an object be 12.8 billion light years away and the universe be only 13.6 billion years old?<br /><br />Thanks

 

[newtonian]

BenClark - sounds like an interesting article.<br /><br />Can you link it?<br /><br />OK, if the estimates are accurate:<br /><br />The galaxy we are seeing had to form first, then travel to its observed location.<br /><br />We do not know how far the galaxy travelled - we would have to know its origin point to determine that.<br /><br />We are seing the galaxy as it was12.8 billion years ago.<br /><br />We are the ones who have traveled during those 12.8 billion years.<br /><br />We do not know where that galaxy is now!<br /><br />Now, astronomer Wendy Friedman has estimated our universe is 12 billion years old.<br /><br />And that does indeed cause a problem!!!

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">If this galaxy is a product of the big bang, then that means that the entire galaxy had to travel a distance of 12.8 billion light years in about 800 million years. <br />That does not seem possible. Does it???? That</font><br /><br />Not unless you believe Inflation Theory. Inflation Theory suggests that space is being "inserted" between galaxies. Also, the Big Bang is a misnomer. It is more like a big expansion. Compare the big bang to pixelation. Imagine the universe being one infinitely large cube, and then later on, 8 cubes, then 27, 64, 125 and so on for x^3. Then imagine that the depixelization continues until the universe is many planck lengths and light years wide. This is a "universe" without a spatial origin.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_theory<br /><br />I of course, do not believe this at all.

 

[jatslo]

Listen, they don't have a freaking clue, that's why. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How can an object be 12.8 billion light years away and the universe be only 13.6 billion years old?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Same answer to all your questions.

 

[jatslo]

Well, we have work to do that is for sure.<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I of course, do not believe this at all.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>What are your thought on time dilation; can this galaxy appear large because of length contraction, with respect to a velocity that is much slower relative to Earth's -(v)?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">What are your thought on time dilation; can this galaxy appear large because of length contraction, with respect to a velocity that is much slower relative to Earth's -(v)?</font><br /><br />The contraction goes along the line of travel. If it is travelling straight away from us, then length contraction won't make a difference on how wide it takes part of the sky. The images of galaxies look flat anyways.

 

[jatslo]

Well, if it were fast, it would be a little pin prick of light, so why wouldn't slow make it a massive pin prick of light? Yes, I don't have a clue what direction it is headed.<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The contraction goes along the line of travel. If it is travelling straight away from us, then length contraction won't make a difference on how wide it takes part of the sky. The images of galaxies look flat anyways.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Cherenkov Radiation in space would be an interesting discussion, if you are interested in detecting the particular velocites -(v)'s of masses -(m)'s. Sound like fun?

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86 - Hi!<br /><br />Thanks for the link - wikipedia was not a cookie on my new computer - an excellent free encyclopedia!<br /><br />Your link stated:<br /><br />"The particle responsible for inflation is generally called the inflaton."<br /><br />Learn something new every day!<br /><br />I never heard of an inflaton - is it related to a tachyon - i.e. is it supposed to be able to go FTL (= faster than light?).<br /><br />I don't know how accurate any of the inflation models are, but I do consider an expanding universe to be correct. And acceleration also seems likely from the evidence.<br /><br />What do you think (as simple as possible please)?<br />