Yet another farthest known galaxy discovered?

Yet another farthest known galaxy discovered?

Read about it here

Okay, so they say they've found another galaxy 13.23 billion light years away. Thats great. And this coming 2 weeks after the former futhest galazy was discovered.

Now I was thinking, and some of the data that I'm reading about these discoveries just doesn't make logical sense.

They say the universe is 14 billion years old. This galaxy is 13.23 billion light years away. So they say that the light from the galaxy (what we are seing) is that of the galaxy when it was 470 million years old.

If I did the math right, the Milky Way and that galaxy have been moving apart at 94.5% the speed of light for the past 14 billion years (if infact 14 billion years is any plausible number)

So, does that theoretically mean that our galaxy and the other galaxy have been moving apart so fast that if we could watch it in detail, we are watching it at 5.5% of its acutal speed?

That is the only way I could imagin us seeing an object 13.23 billion light years away is a universe that is suposedly only 14 billion years old.... if the 2 objects have been putting 94.5% of a light year distance between them per year

Any astronomy buffs know a more logical explaination to this?

 

Your mistake is assuming that the relative velocities of the two galaxies have been constant over time. That's probably not the case. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the rest of your post.

 

Okay, here is my question stated more clearly:

How did this galaxy end up 13.23 billion light years away from the Milky Way during a 14 billion year period?

Given the current theory, everything began at a single point and exploded outwards 14 billion years ago... so if this galaxy is 13.23 billion light years away, then how did it end up so far away in a relativly short period of time?

 

I am an idiot, but could we be heading in opposite directions?

 

Considering just what a year is doesnt give me any faith in time.

 

Sounds good to me 'Boosh.

 

Even so, nealy a light year has been put between the 2 galxies per year.

And if the 2 galaxies have been moving apart, assuming at 2 equal speeds directly away from each other, thats still a speed of nearly 1/2 a light year per year.

Thinking about this now, I wonder if its possible that when the universe formed that some things got spewed so far away much faster than the speed of light, that more things could be discovered as the light from these distant places reach earth.

Thus, I just theoretically proved things CAN travell faster than light.... or I just proved the universe was not created in any fasion we have thought of

 

i travel faster than the speed of light all the time.

 

No offense or anything, but I dont think you did.

 

I will remeber this moment come judgment day :rant:

 

Current Cosmological theory believes that in its infancy the universe existed in at least 12 dimensions. During the crunch to the 4 we exist in today, the universe actually expanded at a rate faster then the speed of light. This is why unified field theory in 3 dimensions will never work and why string theory is the present way physicists believe a true unified field model will be worked ut.

 

Believe it or not, you aren't the first person who has thought of this. Fault #1: You assume all the galaxies left a single point (Big Bang) and also constant velocity.

Fault #2: Since the Universe is expanding, the distance right now is larger than the speed of light times the light travel time due to spatial separation.

Fault #3: Distance is a funny word. The velocity of objects can be larger than the speed of light. This isn't even in contradiction of special relativity because the distance and age of the universe both are not the same as in special relativity.

 

All physical matter was created during the big bang(I will stick with this theory since it is most widely excepted) This "bang" is only a few billionths of a second meaning that as soon as the matter was created it started moving. Since 13.23 is less that 14 billion this makes sense and that probably factors in the speed variation of the galaxies. This is how we can see so far back into time. Scientists like we are only missing somewhere around 6% of the universes age. Of course we aren't much farther past that 6% either.


At least I think that is what you are getting at. . . If not I will try again later.

 

guys, guys, check out the inflationary epoch!!!

 

There are all sorts of things that come into play here, the curvature of space (supposedly) not being the least of it. Also, scientists are discovering that the universe has not been expanding at a constant velocity, but is actually expanding at an accelerating rate. Which makes the whole idea even worse.
What you are ignoring, however, is the fact that scientists are basing the purported age of the universe on exactly what it is you are questioning: how far away the furthest object is that we have discovered to date. Since the furthest object we have yet discovered is slightly over 13 billion light-years away, it is safe to assume that the universe must be at least that old.
As far as exceeding the speed of light, well, it is all relative, is it not? Har har.
But really:
If we are moving relative to some central position between our galaxy and the furthest one at slightly under half-c, and the other galaxy is moving in the opposite direction at slightly under half-c, then we are moving relative to each other at nearly the speed of light, though we have only moved about half that distance since the Bang. Poof. Whatever it was.

 

One thing to note is that, if the Big Bang theory is correct, no one knows just how big the bang was. It could be that the mass used to create that galaxy and ours were already several billion light years away from each other from the start.

Just something that I was thinking; I'm no scientist (yet) so don't trust me.

 

That's rather harsh, but fine: I Hereby Deem Thee Untrustworthy

 

Uncleanspirit I love you! M theory is fun. . .well at least at the level I am learning it. I still can't really see the whole 12 dimension thing. Hurts my head. I do think that time is not a dimension though, in fact that is the topic of discussion at my school right now. I think time is really just a human invention that helps us organize things logically. Without time we would only be able to discuss and apply things happening in that exact moment. So we made up time to help communicate better. Now since we have used this concept for potentially thousands of years it vould be second nature. Not to mention it helps us organize our own thoughts in our heads so we can apply concepts and ideas. But a dimension I don't think so and will continue until we make something travel through it.

 

By walking down the street, you are travelling through time, if you think about it. You raise a philosophical point however. Time as we use it is a purely human concept. Clocks, days, hours, etc. are all things we invented.

But, and it's a huge but...We base our concept of time on a constant. Namely the rotation of the Earth on its axis and about the sun. If you want to get really lame and technical the second has been defined based on the frequency of a Cesuim atom. Time has always exisited, we just defined it.

 

Hey stupid - are you too
dumb to know there are
4 different simultaneous
24 hour days within a
single rotation of Earth?
Greenwich 1 day is a lie.
4 quadrants = 4 corners,
and 4 different directions.
Each Earth corner rotates
own separate 24 hour day.
Infinite days is stupidity.