From: laura@nospam.me   
      
   "personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk"  wrote in message   
   news:41f836d5$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net...   
   > "Laura"  wrote in message   
   > news:ct8cmc$ri4$10@news.cybercity.dk...   
   > >   
   > > "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   
   >   
   > hehehehe... thought you'd like that one... :-)   
   >   
   > >>    
   >   
   > > Like it? :-)   
   >   
   > kinda :-)  I always try to reply only to the parts that truly strike my   
   > interest.   
   >   
   >    
   > >> > 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.   
   >   
   > You say "shows matter packed rather tightly..."  this reminds me of what   
   it   
   > would seem like if one were inside a black hole looking outwards... the   
   > further you get to the outer edge, the less densely packed the mass...   
      
   As with all objects of mass, the center tends to be more dense. This applies   
   to black holes too, of course.   
      
   >   
   > The outside of the shell would be LIGHT!   
   >   
      
   Well, it wouldn't *be* light, but at least it would *have* light.   
      
   One can speculate a lot about what is really to be found beyond the Hubble   
   universe (that 14 billion LY limit). Was the universe ever a singularity? It   
   was if direct extrapolation can be trusted, but can it? And if it was a   
   singularity, is there an "inverted" universe beyond that (imagine an   
   hourglass-shaped configuration, with the bottleneck being the singularity).   
   And if it was only a singularity without a weird mirror universe, was it   
   ever more than that - the result of a previous collapsed universe perhaps?   
   Or did the singularity arise out of an extremely improbable fluctuation in   
   quantum foam?   
   All of this is open to speculation, but it's hard to see how any of it can   
   ever be answered :-)   
   Personally, I rather like the idea of the universe being a cyclic thing;   
   that the big bang came from a big crunch that went before it, and that a big   
   crunch will eventually come to this universe as well, perpetuating the   
   cycle. I realize that the universe shows no signs of slowing down its   
   expansion - on the contrary, in fact. But it still might, due to some   
   unforeseen and not understood mechanism. It just seems more appealing and, I   
   dare say, natural than endlessly accellerating expansion leading to the   
   bleak heat-death of the universe, with only a lightless void with   
   near-infinite distances between objects, and a completely even temperature   
   everywhere of a fraction of a degree above absolute zero.   
   But it doesn't matter what I would like. The universe will do what it does,   
   and I will never know the difference :-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)