BBC Focus Magazine

[M Paul Lloyd]

Transfered from the Reference Section for further discussion.

Where is the visible Universe?

Post by Lateralman » Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:14 pm
Where is the visible Universe?

We have touched upon this topic before and this dumb question still troubles me.

If we as stargazers are able to look back deep in time with our telescopes and capture images of the early universe that are presumably millions and billions of years old, then where is it now?

For in the time light has travelled that far to reach here to reveal to us these images of the past. The early universe must have moved, if as we believe it has been expanding over a thirteen billion year period. Therefore, I interpret this to mean that nothing that we can see when we look out into deep space is actually there.

So if it has moved, then where to and why can’t we see it? Has the light where it has moved to not reached us yet? Why not?

Is it because we know that light photons do not travel in an instant to reach us from thirteen billion years ago. Then how could there have been a Big Bang or left over images of the early universe for us to capture after thirteen billion years? For if we can see past evidence of a Big Bang now, then that would mean that it all has happened now.

Again, if it has happened now then there has been no elapsed period of thirteen billion years. No time has passed. If it is still there and we are not looking into the past but the present as it is now.
In addition, if alternatively everything just made a grand appearance to be as it is now, then a Big Bang would have had nothing to do with creating a universe because everything just appeared like magic with no time elapsing. Nevertheless, if it has just appeared, then why is it ordered and moving?

However, we think we know that everything has not just appeared now, for if it had everything that we see would be an illusion. So where is the universe we cannot see?

In addition, if the early universe has moved, then any map we produce of the far regions of space must be wrong. If we are looking back into the past at images of the early universe then we are mapping something that no longer exists. How can that be possible?

Does this explain why some of the things, (The pillars of creation,) we see far out in space appear to vanish because the last photons of light from their past existence have finally finished reaching us? If these things vanish then why can't we see evidence of the remains of their disappearance if we are looking towards where they once were?

How do time, distance, the CBM and what we call red shift connect to all of this? How can we be sure that the universe is expanding when the planetary anchor points in space we use to gauge our calculations might not actually be there?

What are we seeing? Are we seeing duplicates of those events based on the length of time the speed of light has been broken may times over when we look back in time to the presumable event of the Big Bang?

On the other hand, is it that only the closest parts to us really exist in the positions we see them in and the ones furthest away only appear to be there but have actually moved, changed or ceased to exist the further we look back? In other words, the furthest parts away from us have moved somewhere else long ago because the speed of light can be broken over time and distance but by the time the light has reached us, they appear as they once were billions of years ago.

If events never go backwards and the arrow of time always points towards the future then why can we look deep into the night sky at the past? In addition how is it that what we see hasn’t gone through entropy if entropy always increases?

If we can look into the past then does that mean the past is still there and has not died? Does this mean that the arrow of time can never cease to exist? That it does move backwards.

Alternatively, has the whole universe moved and if it has then where is it now?

If it has moved, then is it possible to calculate where the invisible universe would or should be now even though we cannot see it? Is the infinite universe actually finite? If so, how finite is it? Moreover, if some parts have moved or ceased to exist then why haven’t these catastrophic events affected us?

Stranger still if I was standing on a world out there light years away looking back towards to here, what would I see? Blank empty space or would I see the reverse of what we see from Earth and would that be an image of the very early Earth or would it be as it is today?

Are we currently looking at ghost images of a distant visible universe that is no longer there? How can we look back into the past without being in the past or the past being there? How can we look at movement there when we are looking at something that is moving billions of years back in time? How can that be? How do light photons after travelling for billions of years remain intact to give us a clear un-blurred image? Why are they cohesive after travelling all these different distances over time and space?

What are we looking at exactly? What is real? What are we mapping? Where is the invisible universe?

Lots and lots of knots or is the answer simple? The universe is a UFO.

Disjointed suppositions and lack of knowledge perhaps but I feel something does not add up. I am confused. I don’t get it. Many minds make light work. Can anyone out there help explain a universal creation conundrum, which is visible to us all every night?

post21909.html#p21909

[...]

Hey?

[Shadowwolf]

Lateral, the visible verse is right in front of you, you stand on it and when dark you can look out and see a portion of the rest of it. This trouble you are experiencing is purely the result of either being unaware of or not understanding some concepts; despite all your questions there is no profound and troubling mystery here.

I’m not going to go through your questions, if you know the basics then you won’t or shouldn’t have any need to raise them.

Light travels and like anything that goes from one point to another it takes time to get there, the further away the longer the travel time. At very short distances the delay is still there but negligible and processed out by our brain, at very large distances the delay is increasingly noticeable. Sol is about eight minutes away, if you look at the sun you see it as it was eight minutes ago and as the sun keeps emitting light this image is constantly updated. Is the sun not there because you only see it as it was eight minutes ago? No, that would be absurd and despite the larger gap it’s no different with further away objects; the possibility that they may be physically gone is not some mind bending calamity just merely a function of distance and perspective. Now if Sol were to suddenly move we’d know eight minutes after the change began and then we’d see the star’s transit to its new position. This is because the light is not emitted in discrete bursts with large gaps between where anything could happen, it’s a continuous stream. So even were a galaxy a million light years distant and we seeing it as it was a million years ago as the light reaches us now, the image is constantly updated. If an imaginary explosion obliterated that galaxy a year later then we would, in a year’s time, note a tremendous increase in light followed by a gradual decrease to nothing; if something is gone then it cannot emit or reflect light and thus nothing will be visible. Neither will the light from the blast reach us before the earlier light would; it cannot travel faster and will only ever arrive after the rest. But galaxies being the only visible very distant structures are incredibly long lived, and whilst we may see many only as they were, they are nonetheless almost certainly still there somewhere even if they have gone beyond the visible horizon. Any changes we will observe as that light reaches us and we need have no worry that everything has just up and vanished or is mysteriously not there.

Now the CMB is not light, only trouble will stem from conflating it with light. The CMB is a faint still cooling thermal signature in microwaves from the immense heat of the Big Bang event that is still present everywhere because it was present as the entire verse formed long before there were stars or galaxies forming in the new verse. It did not travel from some imaginary point of the BB to us; it was there as space itself appeared and so is everywhere now.

Btw seeing light that left its source millions of years past is no more travelling through time or past events being literally physically present now as looking at a photograph would be. We’re seeing light that began its journey millions of years ago, nothing more.

[Lateralman]

Mr Wolf thanks for your response. I still feel there is something we have not quite grasped and I think that it is important as it concerns many things previously discussed. I realise that I do not understand many things and honestly feel stupid questioning this but feel compelled to.

There is currently a discrepancy over our measurements of the distance of the moon from the earth that we do not understand.

If the sun should move and we would know about it eight minutes later, how can the image be ‘constantly’ updated when there is a period of eight minutes before the light photons have arrived here for it to be updated? Do you see what I am getting at?

If the galaxies that are millions of years away should move or have moved millions of years ago, they still have moved but we would not know about it yet because of the length of time the light has to take to reach us. Therefore, over that long period, if they have moved then what we are currently seeing is the universe as it was millions of years ago but right at this moment is not were we see it because in relation to 'time' it is now somewhere else.

We are seeing light that began its journey millions of years ago but not the galaxies as they are now or in their current positions.

The constant stream of light is not constant because it is broken by time. Just like the delays in sound waves over long distances into space.

I read somewhere that some scientist has detected evidence of there being not one Big Bang but several. Again, does this information relate to what I am referring?

[M Paul Lloyd]

There is currently a discrepancy over our measurements of the distance of the moon from the earth that we do not understand.

What "discrepancy" exactly? It is moving away from us at a regular rate and its orbit is slightly eliptical but that is all.

Do you see what I am getting at?

Sadly no..... may I ask, are you recieving counselling?

what we are currently seeing is the universe as it was millions of years ago

Yes this much is true...... but the rest... is merely nonsense.

I read somewhere that some scientist has detected evidence of there being not one Big Bang but several. Again, does this information relate to what I am referring?

No-one has detected any such thing, anything pertaining to such concepts is entirely theroretical.

[Lateralman]

Mr Lloyd, without wishing to be rude please for a moment try to forget what you know.

I will try again to explain this simple thought. If the sun stopped shining now we would only know about it eight minutes later. However, although we can see it shining now it has still stopped shining now.

[Lateralman]

I shall dig out the other information, as it was a while ago I read about it.

[Shadowwolf]

Indeed, you see that's the perennial problem we keep stumbling up against, this "feeling" that despite your admitted lack of understanding you still think everyone else is on some fools errand. That there must be "something" else we're all just missing. How can you question something if you don't even understand what's been said? You're jumping the gun and coming up all manner of wrong to boot. Deal with what's known, not what you feel reality should be.

Firstly there is no discrepancy over the distance between Terra and Luna I'm aware of, methinks your mixing up variation in distances due to Luna's elliptical orbit. If it's something else you'll need to link it.

Now for Sol. Put your left hand up and out then move it to the right across your face without blinking. Did it suddenly disappear from the left and reappear on the right? No, you saw it move from point A to point B even though the reflected light from your hand took a teeny amount of time to get from it to your retina and be processed. Your brain processes out or just can't notice the gaps between photons and presents a moving picture as long as it is getting light to see by. Same deal for the sun. The light reaching Terra being eight minutes old is only relevant when trying to know exactly what Sol is doing in real time. Because the light being emitted is constant, even as it moves, thus we will have a constantly updated image of Sol and see it transit even if it is literally physically slightly ahead of that point. Your acting as though there is an eight minute gap during which we see nothing then the sun jumps to a new spot in an instant, and that's quite mistaken. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Regards the wider verse, yes we do see it as it once was - highly variable though as we are at varying distances to objects, some stars being mere light years distant - and not as each object physically is at this exact moment. However, without being there we can't do any better than observe what's come to us, it's not really a problem mind and doesn't cause astronomers any issues. Most objects out there last for incredibly long times and are so distant that large movements don't look like much. Besides, once you know the variables you can work out roughly where anything should be even if you can't see it there yet. Btw it is in relation to us any given object is somewhere else, not time.

The light from these distant sources is for all intents and purposes constant excepting any intervening object physically blocking it. Broken by time doesn't mean anything. Needless to say you don't get sound waves in space as there is o medium for them to propagate in.

In the case of other BB artifacts in the CMB, no it does not relate and the suggestion itself is very tentative anyways. Personally I reckon it's probably just pareidolia from the noise in the image and not anything of substance; we're certainly a long way from any greater certainty.

...try to forget what you know.

Don't be so daft, that's what creates these messes in the first place. The rest is nonsense.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Mr Lloyd, without wishing to be rude please for a moment try to forget what you know.

I will try again to explain this simple thought. If the sun stopped shining now we would only know about it eight minutes later. However, although we can see it shining now it has still stopped shining now.

Trust me Lateral I suspend belief every time I read one of your posts.

And yes we would not know the sun had stopped shining for eight whole minutes and no we don't know what the universe looks like now because what we see is just a snap-shot image of the past, and of course the further we look the more ancient it all appears.

[Lateralman]

“Everybody else is on some kind of fool’s errand.” That is it! I think we are being tricked. Distant space is an optical illusion, a massive deception of perspective, foreground and background. It is almost like one of those clever pictures that look like one thing and when you look long enough it looks like another. Are we looking at the inside of the square box or are we looking at the outside. The cosmos is a stage with an infinite magician’s trick played upon it. The deeper we look into it the more duped we become by sleight of hand.

Sorry to disappoint you chaps, I am not insane. Then again, perhaps I am for the insane bring us a vision of the world that we cannot comprehend. Anyhow, this is a nonsensical conversation with substance. None one likes to be the fool by challenging conventional wisdom, unfortunately or fortunately progress makes fools of us all.

“If the sun goes out we wouldn’t know it has done so for eight minutes and yet it has still gone out eight minutes before we know it has gone out.” If that is not a gap then what is it, - double Dutch?

I am aware of the hand trick thing I realise that my brain has to compensate for the movement. Therefore, it does trick us. That is close up. What if a big foot suddenly swung in and booted the sun out of the Milky Way. Would we not witness the emitted light from this giant kick for eight minutes?

Something is definitely not right. It might be me. If you think about it, many of the past great scientists would not have been aware of this illusion of distance, for much of what we are seeing and discovering now, if you will forgive the pun, has only recently come to light.

If we were seeing snapshots, then that would mean that there are other snapshots behind the ones we are seeing and yet the ones we are seeing are meant to be snapshots of the distant past delivered to us here and now in the so-called future????????

How can space carry on for infinity? Honestly, do you both believe that? Without knowing, we are at the fun fair in the hall of mirrors.

“When I look through my telescope I see the early universe as it was billions of years ago.” Really! How can that be possible? How can I see a constantly updated image of the universe as it was billions of years ago? If that was so, and I could look that far back, I should be able to see other worlds populated with other advanced or ancient life forms. If I never had a telescope to look through the early universe would not exist. I thought I was the guy who lives in a world of fantasy.

Nope, I do not buy it. There is something definitely wrong. For me the best example I can think of is that the distant universe is something like the double slit theory with us being a definitive part of it looking out, we can see the extra slits/worlds beyond us, we know that they should not be there and yet we can see them. Like the multiple slits the light is constant and yet not there.

Seeing is not believing. None of us can yet explain it but that does not mean it is not true or real, - whatever real is.

“What we see far out in space is not there.” Can you imagine the implications of that statement? It affects all we know. Scary, makes me wonder if we know anything at all.

I close my eyes and there is no universe...

[Shadowwolf]

That is it! I think we are being tricked. [...] The cosmos is a stage with an infinite magician’s trick played upon it. The deeper we look into it the more duped we become by sleight of hand.

By the Divines Lateral you could try to learn something!

I am aware of the hand trick thing...

That was not the point, I'll try one last time to illustrate the very simple concept you're failing to appreciate.

A - Sol, B - Terra. There are no intervening objects.

To start we will assume that A is off, no light emitted. A turns on, light is emitted and starts traveling towards B, at B nothing is seen of A. After eight minutes elapse light from A reaches B and B can now see A, albeit as it was eight minutes ago. The space between A and B is now filled with light from A. B will continue to see A as long as it is turned on.

A turns off and stops emitting light, A is still visible from B. The space between A and B is still filled with light at this point. The last light emitted from A travels like the back of a train with the entire train of light ahead of it to B. After eight minutes elapse the last light reaches B and A vanishes from sight.

A turns on again, eight minutes elapse and B can now see A again. The space between A and B is filled with light. A begins to move upwards. As A moves light is constantly emitted as it travels. Eight minutes after A begins to move B sees A begin to move. B will continue to see A move until eight minutes after A physically stops as the light constantly emitted by A constantly updates B's view of A. A does not vanish from one point to reappear in another, its movement will be clearly visible as long as it s turned on.

There is a significant delay over large distances that is greater the further away an object is. This is not a profound mystery or an incredible issue.

How can I see a constantly updated image of the universe as it was billions of years ago? If that was so, and I could look that far back, I should be able to see other worlds populated with other advanced or ancient life forms. If I never had a telescope to look through the early universe would not exist.

So the facade has slipped and we're back to the raving fantasy thoroughly devoid of all current knowledge because in your fevered ego the only one who could possibly unravel the mysteries of the cosmos is you right? Everything discovered by everyone else thus far is just wrong eh? Has to be, I mean you just feel it is so it must be wrong, feelings are data after all. Presumably because it has not sprung from special you. You could try to learn something but noooo, that would mean you weren't the center of profound discovery anymore, and we can't be having that so it never happens. Sure you pretend for a bit but that never lasts for long because it's not the great discovery you imagine for yourself.

Idiot.

[Lateralman]

Mr Wolf, the dunce’s corner is the loneliest place in the universe. You know I haven’t the foggiest about any of this. I need to think a little more about your comments. I’ll be back.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Something is definitely not right. It might be me.

Now that, Lateral is the entire argument in a nutshell.

[Lateralman]

Right here we go. I too will try one last time to explain this.

If the light from A-Sol takes eight minutes to reach B-Terra it cannot be ‘constantly’ updated, as it would be always eight minutes out of date.

A begins to move. Eight minutes after A begins to move B sees A begin to move. Exactly, B does not know that A has moved until eight minutes have elapsed but nevertheless A has moved eight minutes ago.

Therefore, what if B was looking at A only they were billions of years apart and the light between both were constant and A begins to move in a straight line across space. A would still move but B would not see A move for billions of years and yet A has still moved even though the light is constant.

This is because the light that B is seeing emitting from A is very old none updated light.

If the light from the early universe takes billions of years to reach us that would mean it would be billions of years out of date.

Therefore, over that lengthy period everything that we are currently seeing, (with the expansion of the universe,) must have moved or possibly ceased to exist.

What is there is still probably shining but it is no longer shining from the fixed points we currently see it shining from because the light we are currently viewing is very old un-renewed light.

Before you say it, I know it sounds nuts.

[Shadowwolf]

What does 'constantly updated' mean? Does it mean that what you see is exactly how the object physically is now in real time, or merely that the image you see is always changing as new information (light) arrives? I would have thought the latter to be fairly obvious, so we see when phenomena like novas happen and the aftermath as they fade; if our view was not constantly updated then we'd see nothing as it would mean no new information (light) was arriving. It emphatically does not suggest seeing any distant object as it is right now.

A begins to move. Eight minutes after A begins to move B sees A begin to move. Exactly, B does not know that A has moved until eight minutes have elapsed but nevertheless A has moved eight minutes ago. [...] What is there is still probably shining but it is no longer shining from the fixed points we currently see it shining from because the light we are currently viewing is very old [edit] light.

Yes, we know that as does every astronomer and probably everyone who pays any attention to stars etc., it's nothing new and certainly should not prompt questions like, "So if it has moved, then where to and why can’t we see it? Has the light where it has moved to not reached us yet? Why not?" The answers should be obvious: if we know the variables we can plausibly chart its approximate position; we cannot see it in its actual location because that light has not arrived yet; because light takes time to get from there to here is why. Or this query, "How do time, distance, the CBM and what we call red shift connect to all of this? How can we be sure that the universe is expanding when the planetary anchor points in space we use to gauge our calculations might not actually be there?" Now you still don't know what redshift is, redshift is a stretching of light caused by the source moving away from us, that's how we know there is expansion because the light sources are moving and have been for a very long time, pretty much since before they even started shining; we're able to use the information we have. Or this, "Moreover, if some parts have moved or ceased to exist then why haven’t these catastrophic events affected us?" Is it not obvious that any event that could effect us could only do so when the calamity finally travels here just like the light takes time to arrive?

You really need to quit trying to figure out the entire cosmos whilst being almost entirely ignorant of the basics. You'd be better served if in future you restrict yourself to one question at a time, not a deluge of tripping from query to query, one question only. Have that answered and understood before moving on to the next question and save us all the headache.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Light does not need to be 'renewed' or 'updated' Lateral, it is, as far as we can tell, eternal and never degrades, and allowing for the occasional distortion of space time and some frequency shifting due to relative movement the stream of photons that left the earliest stars millions or even billions of years ago is exactly the same stream of photons that goes into your eye when you look at the nights sky.


Even those photons are unique to you alone and although everyone else might be looking at the same star those photons are yours. It's one of the things I like about astronomy, you have a personal and unique connection with the universe.

[Lateralman]

Mr Wolf, I think that we are at cross-purposes. It is all down to how we see things, you know like the optical illusion are we looking at the outside of the box or are we looking at the inside.

In this context when I refer to light, I refer to it as being an array of single imaginary beams coming from each of the separate heavenly bodies directly to the back of my retina and not a luminous flood from each one in all directions. Narrow beams of photons, which are specific to me, aimed at me with their parallax from my perspective. Like in the double slit experiment when anyone tries to move closer to view the extra infrared slits they vanish.

To prove this I think we need to have a telescope to look at the stars from a position far from the earth as I think it has something to do with astronomical perception and angles. So far, we can only view them from near earth vantage points for as you know, we have no fixed horizon line in space for guidance.

All I would say is NASA should point its cameras or telescope, if the Rover is equipped with one, from Mars (though even this may not be far away enough) towards the stars and recalibrate their positions. As it is a permanent observation point far from earth and an opportunity (like the double slit experiment) to move around to the side to see if anything happens to their set.

I realise that I do not have an astute grasp of any of their past experiments and they may have already done so.

I still do not get the delay with light, even as we write there is a contradiction here as you said, “If an imaginary explosion obliterated this galaxy, a ‘YEAR’ later we would in a year’s time, note a tremendous increase in light followed by a gradual increase to nothing.” Therefore, even if we can see that galaxy now with our telescopes and if it suddenly exploded before our very eyes are we seeing it explode now or are we seeing it explode a year later?

New thoughts are easy to quash they may very well be rubbish but they are new. Humanity once believed that the moon was a goddess or possibly a big flying cheese. Alternatively, the novel idea I read about only yesterday that the composition of the moon is that of rubble thrown from the earth created by an impact strike of a much larger planet than first proposed!

Riddle me this, how can someone who is a none entity, who openly admits he knows zilch about science, have a fevered ego?

Will I, you, the world’s scientific community, the chap delivering the post, my aunt fanny brewing a cup of tea, unravel the mysteries of the cosmos? If anybody is able to see the universe, with a fresh enquiring eye and have a crack at solving its secrets, why not?

Anyway, I am willing to bet that we will do it a lot sooner as long as knowledge guardians such as you and Mr Lloyd stay willing to correct the error of our ways and entertain our follies. From ideas spring data.

“Idiot!” Ten out of ten for observation, you will get no counter from me on that one.

[M Paul Lloyd]

All I would say is NASA should point its cameras or telescope, if the Rover is equipped with one, from Mars (though even this may not be far away enough) towards the stars and recalibrate their positions. As it is a permanent observation point far from earth and an opportunity (like the double slit experiment) to move around to the side to see if anything happens to their set.

The Hubble space Telescope is far better at resolving such detail using its on board instrumentation than and any such very much smaller and less well equipped device as fitted to the Mars rover which is a mere 50 million miles further from our nearest position.
I don't think you quite comprehend the true magnitude of the universe do you Lateral?
Consider that a light year which is 5,878,499,810,000 miles and therefore somewhat further than here to Mars and when you consider the universe has it origins some 14 plus Billion, thats 14,000,000,000 lights years ago then you must appreciate that tyhe universe is one really big place?

I realise that I do not have an astute grasp of any of their past experiments and they may have already done so.

All we ask is that you are willing to learn... but to learn that which is known to be true not what you imagine to be so?

I still do not get the delay with light, even as we write there is a contradiction here as you said, “If an imaginary explosion obliterated this galaxy, a ‘YEAR’ later we would in a year’s time, note a tremendous increase in light followed by a gradual increase to nothing.” Therefore, even if we can see that galaxy now with our telescopes and if it suddenly exploded before our very eyes are we seeing it explode now or are we seeing it explode a year later?

As mentioned above ... the universe is one really big place.... way bigger than I think you have thus far imagined?

[Shadowwolf]

In this context when I refer to light, [...] Like in the double slit experiment when anyone tries to move closer to view the extra infrared slits they vanish.

Don't see any point in this paragraph and you invoke what seems to be a nonsense version of the double-slit experiment.

To prove this I think...

Prove what? You've proposed nothing to prove.

All I would say is NASA should point its cameras or telescope, if the Rover is equipped with one, from Mars...

Of course they're going to look slightly different if you go to a different vantage point, that's obvious; Mr M covers the rest.

I still do not get the delay with light, [...] are we seeing it explode now or are we seeing it explode a year later?

When we see a supernova what see is the light from a supernova that has traveled across the space between us and that star. It took time to do so, in real time the supernova has come and gone, if we were close enough to view it in real time we'd be gone also. If a star was one light year away then we'd see that star as it looked one year ago from the date and time we looked at it. If that star went nova we'd see that event a year after it physically happened, so if it happened to this star on this day then we'd see the event when the light finally got here on 01/08/13. On that date we'd see the light from the exploding star whilst the physical reality of that star is as a supernova remnant. We'd see the light from the explosion now but we also know the distance to the star and that the event physically took place a year prior to our observation of an explosion. If you can't get it I'd suggest you leave it.

Riddle me this, how can someone who is a none entity, who openly admits he knows zilch about science, have a fevered ego?

Yes. Despite your lack of knowledge you think that your feelings are sufficient basis to consider all else are wrong even though you cannot refute them at any point, then you think you're doing something amazing in explaining the cosmos in spite of this and that's quite egotistical.

Will I, you, the world’s scientific community, [..] with a fresh enquiring eye and have a crack at solving its secrets, why not?

You know zilch therefore you cannot solve what you do not understand. Instead you spew out great piles of genuine garbage spawned directly from that ignorance and act as though that stream of incoherence is somehow useful, helping to blaze forth in charting new revelations in our knowledge. It's not. It's a gish gallop of questions, random statements and random scientific terms misused and ignorant of the basics of reality which ultimately mean nothing. Like I said, one question, one question at a time only and no steaming great piles of speculation on the side. As Mr M says, "All we ask is that you are willing to learn... but to learn that which is known to be true not what you imagine to be so?"

[Lateralman]

Okay, calma down, calma down, deep breath, one question, sort of.

It is all a contradiction in terms of when you take into account the distance light has to travel. “The image is always changing as new information (light) arrives.” This would mean the image we see is very old and what has happening now where the image first began is different. Therefore, as we look at old images we are not looking at a real true image, ‘as it is right now.’ Hence, what we see at a distance is not real, what we see up there is not there, hence... ‘Where is the visible universe?’

So to reiterate, are we looking at old images or are they in real-time? However, we know they are not in real- time because of the time delay.

On a similar note if we see a galaxy explode today but we know it has exploded many years in the past and know this because the light from that explosion has only just arrived today for us to see, in that case how can light be eternal and never degrade? If the galaxy exploded millions of years ago, how can the photons we see as we look up into the night sky be the same, for what has exploded in the past no longer exists long before we see it cease to exist? This can only mean light is not eternal and can degrade because the explosive point of origin has vanished a vast amount of time before and is no longer there.

Then how can the stream of photons keep coming to us? If something exploded out there and was gone in seconds and yet we would not witness this explosion until a vast amount of time later even though it is travelling like the back of a train to reach us over that period, it is still too slow for us to see it sooner. The point, the explosive flash that it originated from, no longer exists, has gone long ago, is no longer there, and has degraded by the time we get to witness the explosion, the event. Yet the light still travels here to reveal the image, the explosion, which is an image of the explosion-taking place at the point of origin. This would mean that the explosion that we see at the point of origin is an illusion. As the light, it originally emanated from has long ago degraded and gone.

It has nothing to do with ego, only curiosity as I have never had the opportunity to bounce with any scientist on an important topic such as this but right or wrong always had an unvoiced opinion.

Never knew astronomy could be so much fun!