Tim Layton said:
You think Hubble's deep field is seeing what happened 14 billion light years ago and not zooming into what is currently happening?
Yes, that's right.
Tim Layton said:
With the trillions of suns in each galaxy why is there so much darkness within a galaxy let alone inbetween galaxies?
Because space is big. Really,
really big. Space is so big that every single star except for the Sun has an angular diameter of a tiny fraction of a degree across. Betelgeuse, the star with the larger angular diameter other than the Sun, is only ##1.5 x 10^{-5}## degrees across. So the vast majority of the time your line of sight is not falling on a star, but continuing on past it.
Tim Layton said:
If Hubble was stronger it would see farther.
By itself, "stronger" is a meaningless word when it comes to optics. If what was stronger? The magnification of the system? The light gathering capability? The power of the primary mirror? The HST is limited by the signal to noise ratio of its main sensor. This in turn depends on a huge number of factors. A more sensitive detector would enable it to gather light more efficiently and increase the SNR for any given exposure time. Less dark current or bias signal reduces the noise and leads to a better SNR. Increasing the diameter of the mirrors while keeping the focal length the same would put more light onto the sensor and increase the incoming signal, leading to a higher SNR. And there are several more factors.
Tim Layton said:
If (visible) light could travel 14 billion light years, you would be blinded by the trillions of suns in the trillions of galaxies all coming at you at once.
We would be if it weren't for the fact that the intensity of the light falls off as ##\frac{1}{r^2}##. For example, the intensity of the Sun's light here on Earth is about 1350 watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere. At a distance of 4 light years, about how far the
nearest star to our solar system is, the intensity has dropped to ##1.56x10^{-11}## of what it was initially, which is about ##2.1x10^{-8}\frac{W}{m^2}##. And that's just at 4 light years. The Alpha Centauri system is actually a little over 4 light years away, so there aren't even any stars within 4 light years, and only a handful of stars within 10 light years. The inverse square law is a harsh mistress.
Tim Layton said:
And if light scatters outward in all directions then how do you see an object, that far away (as a whole).
Simple. Your eye (or the optics in a telescope) catches a small portion of the outgoing wavefront.
Tim Layton said:
Sight and light travel are not the same
I don't believe anyone who knows what they are talking about is claiming that they are.
Tim Layton said:
I don't believe a telescope is seeing into the past, I would say it zooms into seeing the limited distance light can travel from an object.
That is incorrect. Even your eye itself sees into the past. By the time the light from the lightbulb in your room is emitted, bounces off of the walls and other objects in the room, and then enters your eye to be detected, a small amount of time has passed. So you are already seeing slightly into the past, and you will see a little further if you go outside and look at something in the distance. The Moon is about 1 second away at the speed of light, something which mission control and the astronauts of the apollo program had to deal with during communications.
