so imagine that you look at a star that is 5 billion light years away.
so you would be looking at it, as it was 5 billion years in the past right? hmm...
but the universe is expanding and all the stars are generally getting further away.
so wouldn't it be accurate to say that it was 5 billion light years away, 5 billion light years AGO? and that now it has become more distant. but now a whole new problem has emerged...
Deep field pictures show light from stars about 13.6 billion years ago (just after the universe exploded into existence) and it turns out that relative to us, those stars are moving away at just under the speed of light. ok, ok that all makes sense... but here is the kicker!...
the only conclusion that i can come up with is that the light from these ultra deep field images, where sent out from these stars when they where close to earth in comparison. (only in the range of millions of light years apart) and when the universe was very young (within the same range^^, millions of years old) So the light was sent out from these infant galaxies heading towards the infant milky way saying "oh look, its only a few million years away" but they didn't count on the fact that the milky way was moving away from them, so they're going "siht, siht, catch up, catch up". And the light beams slowly gain ground, and slowly gain ground until they are picked up by the hubble telescope.
BUT this violates the theory ofrelativityy, no? because the speed of light is the same from any reference point so...
the light MUST have been sent out when they where 13.6 billion light years away (when the universe was 13.6 billion light years in diameter)... and 13.6 billion years ago... but... that cant be true because that means that now the universe would be 27.2 billion years across... which itisn'tt....
and now we have come full circle
thank you all for your help, my brain is exploding
so you would be looking at it, as it was 5 billion years in the past right? hmm...
but the universe is expanding and all the stars are generally getting further away.
so wouldn't it be accurate to say that it was 5 billion light years away, 5 billion light years AGO? and that now it has become more distant. but now a whole new problem has emerged...
Deep field pictures show light from stars about 13.6 billion years ago (just after the universe exploded into existence) and it turns out that relative to us, those stars are moving away at just under the speed of light. ok, ok that all makes sense... but here is the kicker!...
the only conclusion that i can come up with is that the light from these ultra deep field images, where sent out from these stars when they where close to earth in comparison. (only in the range of millions of light years apart) and when the universe was very young (within the same range^^, millions of years old) So the light was sent out from these infant galaxies heading towards the infant milky way saying "oh look, its only a few million years away" but they didn't count on the fact that the milky way was moving away from them, so they're going "siht, siht, catch up, catch up". And the light beams slowly gain ground, and slowly gain ground until they are picked up by the hubble telescope.
BUT this violates the theory ofrelativityy, no? because the speed of light is the same from any reference point so...
the light MUST have been sent out when they where 13.6 billion light years away (when the universe was 13.6 billion light years in diameter)... and 13.6 billion years ago... but... that cant be true because that means that now the universe would be 27.2 billion years across... which itisn'tt....
and now we have come full circle
thank you all for your help, my brain is exploding