NASA scientists discover the beginning of time. (Their description)

  1. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1996/01/image/a

    Now this should make for an entertaining conversation on a rainy weekend. What is the plausibility that NASA has really found the beginning of time? That photograph is of the area of space at the extreme range of the HST. So what is past that place? Is it the galaxies which existed before the beginning of time? Now there's a paradox for you! Are they saying that they found the edge of the universe? And if not, how can they say they found the beginning of time? Clearly, someone is being disengenuous, or they're just plain stupid. I wonder which it is?

    So that this is not just an opportunity to laugh at the ineptitude of the highly educated cosmologists at NASA in presenting their photgraphic evidence of what the HST sees, there is a very real topic in this which deserves discussion. Is light infinite, or does it have an active cycle after which it becomes dormant? Or we could stretch the topic somewhat and discuss whether or not it is possible to see back in time.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. They're being metaphorical

    in talking about the beginning of time. They just mean as far back in time as we can see now. Yes, even scientists can be metaphorical or poetic at times. And the full resolution version is a spectactular photo, well worth a view. Look at all the different kinds of galaxies, and we still have no good explaination for their forms.
     
  4. I really don't think questioning the intelligence of NASA is a good idea. I am sure that whatever they state is something that's agreed upon by a panel of the highest authority and knowledge.

    Of course light doesn't have an active cycle.

    No it is not possible to see back in time.


     
  5. The article actually says the newly discovered galaxies date back to a billion years after the big bang. A billion years is hardly the beginning. Bad title for the article, I suppose.

    And there doesn't seem to be anything mystic about seeing back in time. Since light travels at a finite speed, by the time it reaches us from some distant galaxy the image we perceive will be say, billions of years old. This just means the image is a snapshot of the galaxy from a long time ago. Even light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach our eyes. So in that sense, every time you look up at the sun, you're looking back 8 minutes in time.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2003
  6. John - I hate to say it, but you bashing NASA, and then making it obvious to us that you know so little about cosmology makes you look negative.

    The reason (as Eh said not so starkly) that it's looking back at time, is because the light in that photo is VERY VERY OLD in comparison to those objects. In other words, those objects could have long since moved or been demolished.

    Next time don't insult the worlds largest and most intelligent cosmoligical group and miss such a fundamental point.
     
  7. Well, when they say they are looking back in time, they mean it literally. I could post a bunch of links to that, but their stance is so well known that anyone who doesn't know of NASA's belief in looking back on old light to see the past can do their own research and I'm sure you will quickly find references. They say that the light from twenty billion year ago is just reaching us now, and, as is noted, some of the things that light supposedly came from is not there anymore. If they are the top scientists, why would they not be presenting their knowledge in a scientific manner?

    That brings up the question of how long does light exist? Do photons survive for infinity? Photons are the result of a physical interaction between particles, so how can you say they remain in their illuminated state forever? If you say that light doesn't have an active cycle, then explain how it is created and how it maintains it's illuminated condition after it has been created. If that can't be explained, then it must be assumed that light had a beginning and, conversely, that it must have an end.

    And what's this about bashing NASA? Can't they stand a little criticism when they present stupid theories as bona fide and try to pass that off as legitimate research?
     
  8. Again - you completely didn't have the knowledge to understand the article. It's you who proposed a "stupid" idea, not them.

    Again you did it here. You said "how long does light last?"

    Apprently you are unaware that light does not move at all through the time dimension.

    The light from the big bang is still as it is today. It has absolutely positively never aged a single smallest unit.

    That's what you mistook here. What you mistook earlier, I'll repeat, is that light takes time to get somewhere. The light from those pictures is old, and thus you are seeing the past.

    If today aliens from those planets took a very very very highly detailed photo of the earth, they might see nothing but dinosaurs. Because the light they're getting now is light that left our planet eons ago.
     
  9. You are looking back in time, literally. That is, you are looking at an image from the distant past. What other meaning does it have? Think about it.

    Photons should stay in their current energy level until they act with charged particles. When a photon meets a charged particle, it is absorbed and the energy level of the particle increases. Because the universe is mainly a vacuum, photons from a distant star should have no trouble reaching us.

    Those theories are only stupid when you fail to understand the actual meaning.
     
  10. If aliens were taking pictures of our planet they would be seeing dinosaurs? So what you are implying is that light is reflected off of objects in continuously sustained holographic images that move through space forever? Wouldn't that glut of images tend to mix together as they continuously collided with all the other holgraphic images projected from every other object in space?
     
  11. chroot

    chroot 10,426
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, that's exactly what he said -- with the holographic images and collisions and all. You're spot on. When are you going to finally convince the world about the reality of the megastars, John? You're sitting on a powderkeg.

    - Warren
     
  12. chroot....you don't need to exhibit your stupidity all the time. If you wish to discuss megastars, I've already brought that up in a different thread. If you wish, or are able, to contribute anything to this thread, please stay on topic.
     
  13. John - Yes. That's what I said. Dinosaurs, they would see dinosaurs John.
     
  14. chroot

    chroot 10,426
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Only if there were a bit more than 65 million light-years away. If they were four billion light-years away, they'd see algae. :wink:

    - Warren
     
  15. chroot

    chroot 10,426
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wait, wait -- who's stupid?

    - Warren
     
  16. I must say these are awfully powerful telescopes these aliens are using.
     

  17. Yeah but dude, they're aliens!
     
  18. Yes, but you didn't explain how they would see dinosaurs. For light to be seen moving through space, there must be one photon behind each photon in front of it in a continuous line from the emitter to the receptor. Since we know that a property of light is to scatter, then if the emitter died out and quit emitting, then the last emitted photons at the back of the light stream would have to follow the course of least resistence and start flowing back in the direction of it's original source. That dispersion of light would increase exponentially until it reached cascade and the entire of the emitted light stream dissipated. If that happened, it would be impossible to look back in time and see an object that no longer existed because the dissipation of the light stream would occur in all direction virtually simultaneously while your view of the light stream would be from a single direction.
     
  19. drag

    drag 1,341
    Science Advisor

    I'm not sure John read anything beyond that...:wink:

    btw, the known Universe's age is estimated at 13.7
    billion years, so don't throw irrelevant figures around.

    Peace and long life.
     
  20. John - it's elementary. Them seeing dinosaurs is no different than you seeing yourself in the mirror.
     
  21. chroot

    chroot 10,426
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And thus we see that John knows as much about optics as he does about the rest of physics!

    - Warren
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?