From: laura@nospam.me   
      
   "personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk"  wrote in message   
   news:41f74038$1_1@newspeer2.tds.net...   
   > "Laura"  may have just aged the universe when she   
   > explained:   
      
   :-P   
      
   >   
   >    
      
   Like it? :-)   
      
   > > The greater the distance to an observed object, the faster it appears to   
   > > be   
   > > receding from us (and we from it).   
   > > So, the rate at which it moves away is greater the greater the distance   
   to   
   > > it is.   
   > > This can be expressed as roughly 70 km/s/Mpc, and is called the Hubble   
   > > constant (70 kilometers per second per megaparsec distance from the   
   > > observer). It's actually 71 +4/-3 km/s/Mpc. Between 68 and 75.   
   > > 1 megaParsec = 3.08568025 × 10^22 meters   
   > > 1 lightyear = 9.4605284 × 10^15 meters   
   > > As you can see, a megaparsec is many lightyears. 3,261,636 lightyears,   
   to   
   > > be   
   > > exact (rounded off).   
   > > Something 3,261,636 lightyears away appears to recede at a mere 70km/s.   
   > > The big bang was 14 billion years ago, as that is the oldest light we   
   can   
   > > see.   
   > > So, we divide that into megaparsec segments, expressed in lightyears.   
   > > 14,000,000,000 / 3,261,636 = 4292,325 (rounded off)   
   > > Then we multiply that with the hubble constant.   
   > > 4292,325 * 70 km/s = 300462,75 km/s   
   > > That is just about the speed of light :-) That is why it's 14 billion   
   > > years - if it was any more, we wouldn't be able to see it, as objects   
   > > would   
   > > be receding at more than the speed of light (and they could, since it's   
   > > not   
   > > motion of the objects themselves, but expansion of space). They would be   
   > > redshifted completely out of view.   
   >   
   > Um... who's to say that they *aren't*???   
      
   Quite.   
   We don't see back to the instant of the big bang - we see only back to a   
   time when expansion had slowed down to less than the speed of light.   
   And when I say "see", I'm not talking about visible light. It's all   
   redshifted to radio at that point.   
      
   >   
   > if... the farther away an object is located, the faster it appears to be   
   > receding ...   
   > and:   
   > if something traveling faster than light was redshifted so far as to be   
   > undetectable...   
   > then:   
   > it's quite possible the universe is a LOT older than we think it is (as   
   > light-based physics only work for 14 billion years distance) and the rest   
   we   
   > *can't* see is too far away and traveling at too great a speed to detect!   
      
   Yes, there's no certainty beyond that point. However, what is seen shows   
   matter packed rather tightly, so extrapolating a modest amount of time   
   further backwards would see all matter squeezed into a singularity. It's a   
   reasonable assumption, based on what is observable, but there is no direct   
   observation of the big bang's earliest moments.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)