Comments on: Deepest-ever view of the Universe

By: Editor

Editor — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:34:08 +0000

Youngest with reference to the big bang.

By: Antikytherapy

Antikytherapy — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:22:09 +0000

In the last sentence of the 8th paragraph, ” The youngest galaxy found in the XDF existed just 450 million years after the Universe’s birth in the Big Bang.”, should it read “oldest” instead of “youngest”?

By: travis

travis — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:38:14 +0000

Could somenone explain how the the picture contains galaxies that are dying? This doesnt make sense to me.

By: Carl Brooks

Carl Brooks — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:07:01 +0000

no, the speed of light is constant and cannot be overhauled (as far as we know). Object A would look upon object B and observe that its time is moving much slower than its own time, which seems to run at the normal rate. Object B would observe the exact same thing while observing object A. For a stationary observer looking at both objects, time appears to slow down for both object, while the observers time appears to stay at the normal rate. both objects looking upon the stationary observer would also see the observers time seem to slow down aswell.
The big bang happened everywhere in the universe. every point is the center. We are enveloped in an ever increasing sphere of how far back we can see. This is known as the visible universe. Beyond this point we cannot see because the light hasn’t reached us yet. You are right that there is a point at which the universal expansion rate makes it impossible for the light to ever catch us up. This is beyond the visible universe. i dont know however if the universe is old enough for this to have happened to the light from the big bang. Perhaps the Webb telescope will help answer these questions.

By: Bri

Bri — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:13:26 +0000

Space itself is very flat. The effects of gravity are very close to the gravitational body. In other words, it affects space very close to it’s surface, and even then, only in very small amounts, relative to the size os a star. When the confirmed Einstein’s equations, it took several attempts and the amount of deviation is so small that they had to do pains taking measurement repeatedly.

By: Ted Rodosovich

Ted Rodosovich — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:50:39 +0000

a quikie reaction … how about the curvature of space as a consideration?

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:31:30 +0000

I imagine there must be a point that we can’t see past. Because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, the universe cannot expand as fast as light is catching up. As all matter was closer together in a younger universe, it would have taken less time for light to reach the outer limits of the universe. So, we could never see the early universe because the light would have reached us long before now. I guess though, if we were looking at the other side of the center of the universe, and the galaxies were expanding in the opposite direction, then it would take considerably longer for the light to catch up. Still, there must be a limit to how far back we can see.
This brings me to a question for someone. If object A were traveling close to the speed of light relative to an origin, say the location of the big bang, can an object B move in the opposite direction close to the speed of light, thus object A relative to object B travel faster than the speed of light?

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:01:17 +0000

Never mind. It came up first on search…Brian Aldiss.

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:58:10 +0000

Who wrote, “Galaxies like grains of sand?”