[klaatumail] Re: travel faster than light

  • From: dean thut <deansmilkco@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:43:44 -0700 (PDT)

    I always thought that the images from the Hubbell Space Telescope were from 
objects 14 billion light years away. I also thought that they were very close 
to the area where the big bang happened and stayed there and we were shot far 
into the distance. Therefore we are looking at the universe as it was shortly 
after the big bang.
   I know what you mean about the light being long gone, but there is still 
light traveling from there and it takes 14 billion years to get here. So 
technically we ar looking 14 billion years 


Dean Thut


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bradley, David" <David_Bradley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, October 3, 2011 12:11 PM
> Subject: [klaatumail] travel faster than light
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Hoping some analytical minds on the list may have an answer to a conundrum I 
> have.
> 
> Recent news stories about sub atomic particles being found to travel faster 
> than 
> the speed of light has prompted me to think of the question even though I 
> don't believe it deals with sub atomic particles.
> 
> Supposedly things all started with the big bang.
> 
> If nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then light would have 
> arrived where we currently are in space from the big bang at the same time or 
> before the matter that makes up our world and ourselves could have possibly 
> arrived here.
> 
> That being said, if we're here, how can our large telescopes look so far 
> away and see light traveling from back at the start of the universe?   That 
> light should have reached here before we did and shouldn't be out there to 
> be seen in the distance.....
> 
> It doesn't make sense that we can see light traveling to here from way back 
> when, if that light would have reached here faster than we did to start 
> with....
> 
> Right?
> 
> Dave
>


Other related posts: