how is it possible that we can see light from the beginning of

>>7761258
who claims they know its from the beginning?

damn

>>7761260
well they said it was galaxy form 600 million years after the big bang

Olber's Paradox was derived from OP's exact question.

If space is expanding at a lower speed than light, then light would intensify over time within any given portion of space. This is obviously not the case - the universe is pretty dark and cold. Therefore, OP's discussed implication.

>>7761258
damn i want a gf with an ass like that so i can touch it every time i want

>>7761314
Hello pajeet

>>7761258
>>7761287
if space were expanding at a speed greater than c, then you wouldnt be able to see anything anywhere you dipshit. there would be no stars.

>>7761258
The light we see from the beginning of the universe is just from some other position that is not our own. Just think of it as c * 13 bio years = expansion between us and the point of origin.

>>7761287
Both your comment and Olbert's paradox are resolved by the Big Bang.

>>7761258
>how is it possible that we can see light from the beginning of the universe?

No and yes, you can't see with with the naked eye because it would be red-shifted into microwaves and radiowaves but you could detect it via CBR

> Doesnt that imply that space is expanding at a higher speed than light?

The universe is expanding FTL

>>7761258
>Doesnt that imply that space is expanding at a higher speed than light?
Yesh.

>>7761333
Space expands faster the further away it is from us you dipshit

>>7761314
No girl wants some retard who can't even bother to use proper grammar.

You'll still get to touch her ass one time, but you probably wouldn't do well in jail either.

>>7761258
If space was expanding faster than the speed of light wouldnt it be like goddamn eternal darkness?

>>7761258
It's not from the beginning. It's from the recombination epoch, hundreds of thousands of years after the time of the most rapid expansion.

>>7761258
Big bang is a fucking stupid theory anyways.

>>7761575
I blame witches and jews.

>>7761575
I'm dying to hear your alternative

>>7761536

AND that's why space is dark

Otherwise, since you can consider that there's a homogene and almost infinite number of start anywhere you're looking to, space would be brigth.

It's one of the starting question about relativity.

>>7761258

C is the speed of ligth (and any energy) in empty space, but there's no limitation in space expansion speed.

>>7761258
>how is it possible that we can see light from the beginning of the universe?
We don't

>Doesnt that imply that space is expanding at a higher speed than light?
It doesn't

>>7761287
>Olber's Paradox was derived from OP's exact question.
It wasn't

>If space is expanding at a lower speed than light, then light would intensify over time within any given portion of space
Non sequitur

>>7761333
>if space were expanding at a speed greater than c, then you wouldnt be able to see anything anywhere you dipshit. there would be no stars.
Non sequitur

>>7761413
>The universe is expanding FTL
Prove it

>>7762020
>AND that's why space is dark
It's not

>It's one of the starting question about relativity.
No it's not.

Yea this board sucks I remember why I stopped coming

>>7762146
Hi there, i am sure you are pretty smart but can you tell us why everytime you say no
thx..
oh and btw do i have to change my scheme if i switch from implicit to explicit method ?

>>7762146
>>>>AND that's why space is dark
>It's not

It is