Is there an astrophysicist in the house ? (875 hits)
Category: GeneralRating: 0.43 on 55 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Thrice Palermo (View user info) at 2004-11-28 23:20:51 EST
So...I dont get it (nothing new there).
They say that the big new space based telescopes will be able to look far into the past to the early days (?) of the universe. The light that will be gathered by the telescope will have taken billions of years to travel this far and by seeing this light we will in effect be seeing what happened long ago.
What I dont get is....how did we (the stuff that makes "we"..and our planet, our system, our galaxy etc) beat the light created by these early events to this time and place? How did we beat the photons? Shouldnt that light, traveling at "light speed" for billions of years, have passed this spot in space time long before we came to be here?
My head hurts. I hope yours does to.
User Reviews
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-11-29 22:59:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ouch
Submitted by Ex_Lux_Astrum (user info) at 2004-11-29 17:32:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You're sucking the quarks right out of me. I'm going to "re-cycle" some beer atoms now.
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-29 17:01:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Im curious enough to check this board for a day or so but not enough to wade though a text. I appreciate the image of stars as the basic recycler. Given the vast amounts of time that we are talking about that is obviously true.
But the basic question involved the base mechanics of moving matter and light around the huge volume of space and about how those mechanics limit or effect the perceptability of past events.
It took something more than a series of super novae to move our matter to where it is now. Previous posts state that it was the initial outward push of the expanding universe that did the initial galactic scale spreading
The ejecta materia of a super nova 12.5 billion light years away would never reach us in practical terms and would never approach light speed in any event. That matter will I think forever be "local" (in relative terms) and most likely be re/captured-de accelerated by the gravity of the remnants if its now dispersed sun mass. While some energy will move outward in the form of massless particles and waves and wave/particles. The mass & matter will remain relatively local until re-grouped or gobbled by a singularity.
Submitted by Ex_Lux_Astrum (user info) at 2004-11-29 16:42:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The basic recycling engine is the common star.
Interstellar clouds of dust and gas (mostly hydrogen)= Nebulae. Dense parts of these clouds collapse under their own gravity to form rotational blobs of gas. These cool-shed radio wavelength and infrared radiation.
As the collapse continues, the temperature and pressure within the fucking blob increases, as the atoms are in closer proximity. Also, the blob rotates faster and faster. This spinning action causes an increases in centrifugal forces that causes the gblob to have a central core and a surrounding flattened disk of dust (called a protoplanetary disk or accretion disk). The central core becomes the star; the protoplanetary disk may eventually coalesce into orbiting planets, asteroids, etc.
Anyway, the star then burns hydrogen and chokes on the end result helium ash, and will perish, or continue burning elements up the periodic table as they are fused. They can burn out, expand to red giants, collapse, supernova etc etc etc etc many scenarios. But they all can be reduced back to their starting ingredients.
Hence all can start again. Recycled.
You really need to get to a library and read a book on the subject if your that interested.
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-29 16:05:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Pressed rank before done...
If the universe is 15 billion years old...how did that guys hemmorrhoidal material get from there to here in the allotted time? What was the motive force that moved that matter? How fast did it travel? It surely couldnt have "wandered" here sufficiently quickly.
Basically I reject the distance and thus the timeline of your proposal but the possibility/insecapability of recycling feels right. Atomic scale is so damn small and active.
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-29 15:58:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hi Ex-lux
I read once that every breath that every person takes contains atoms that were breathed by (insert ancient persons name here). It may be that in our bodies we share atoms with ever person who lived more than 5000 years ago.
Cool stuff...
But I am not sure how this relates to the original question.
Submitted by Ex_Lux_Astrum (user info) at 2004-11-29 15:50:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think I know what you were pondering.......let's put it this way: everything is RE-CYCLED.
Your nose hair could conceivably contain re-cycled atoms from Lrrr's (King of Omicron Persei 8) itchy hemorrhoid 12.8 billion light years away.
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-29 15:31:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This discussion was moved to a post entitled "The age of the universe". Much more good stuff to be found there.
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-29 12:41:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Found in a spin off thread. Posting it here for closure I think.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2004-11-29 12:34:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
Fleury75-- zakalwe is right, but I just want to add that immediately
after the Big Bang, there was an event called "inflation" that caused
the entire universe to expand exponentially at a far far faster rate
than the limit of the speed of light. After this time period, different
parts of the universe can be separated by more distance than the
product of the speed of light times the age of the Universe. As the
Universe gets older, we are able in principle to observe more and more
of it as our light travel time horizon grows. I should mention that
the exact details of inflation are still kind of up in the air, and the
evidence for it is indirect. But it's a very elegant way to explain
some otherwise puzzling facts about the universe as observed.
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-29 12:29:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
But there is no scenario in which matter can travel faster than "light" in the same direction and on the same plane...correct??
Aside from that question, What I think I have gotten from this dialog is.
We cannot ever see the "big bang" because of the obvious sort of "event horizon".
We can however possibly "see" back to the early days of the universe. Mosty by studying aftereffects and residual particles/radiations etc.
That the inital explosive expansion of the envelope and any assumptions/assertions about its subsequent further and current expansion, or non expansion, or partial non linear expansion, or contraction, or any mix of these states, are complications that are beyond simple explanation and any explanation that involves these known/unknowns is too complex for me.
Dont mention dark matter or matter distribution. (this is from an email that someone sent to me re this post)
And finally, There are some big fucking brains in the uber world..
Submitted by persephone1007 (user info) at 2004-11-29 12:11:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
electric is correct about the universe expanding being a factor in this. There's evidence that not only is the universe expanding but that it is expanding at a faster rate. This is based on the 'cooling' of the universe. The increasing rate of expansion of the universe effects the distance the light must travel more than if the expansion were constant, which needs to be taken into account when trying to look at the 'picture' of the Big Bang.
Submitted by Fleury75 (user info) at 2004-11-29 11:55:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The fact the universe is expanding really has nothing to do with this question. It is simply an attribute.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2004-11-29 11:24:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2004-11-29 03:01:05 (#)
Ranking: 1
The answer is fairly simple. The universe is expanding. The galaxies and stars that we see in the deep field of space did not form immediately in the universe's infancy.
------------------
I guess noone still wants the simple answer...
Submitted by Donitsu2002 (user info) at 2004-11-29 11:13:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
it's a lot more simple than most people here point it out to be.
Every image is made up of light, so looking at something right now you see it as it was in the past because the light hasn't reached us. We didn't beat anything that's why we have the capability of looking into the past.
Submitted by Fleury75 (user info) at 2004-11-29 10:59:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Im with bart on this one;
The theory of a telescope being able to see into the past and thus witness and document the big bang is explained by simple physics.
We all know that what you see is actually light reflecting off a surface. If you think of it as a projector, where the 'object' you are looking at is 'shooting' a picture towards your eyes, then this concept gets easier to grasp.
When the Big Bang allegedly occurred, the light that reflected off the surfaces of particles that were created, was projected in all directions. Because we know the speed of light is infanticimal compared to the size of the known universe, it is conceivable that if we could see far enough (which in actuality means: if we can detect a light source that has traveled to our 'eyes' from a certain distance) then we could 'see' history. The further we can look, the further into the past we can see.
An primitive example would be: If the Big Bang actually happened in 'one spot' where the imbalance of matter and antimatter climaxed into a large explosion, creating planets, stars and gases, then, theoretically, if the explosion happened far enough away (where the distance divided by speed of light (c) is greater than the number of years ago the big bang happened) we could witness the even through the telescope. Inadvertantly, we can also use our new Nokia to film 60 seconds of it and send ti to our friends on the same cell plan.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2004-11-29 10:46:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Ummm.... what?
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-29 10:39:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow. The last batch was worth reading.
Thanks to all and especially Electrictooth, Fuckthearmy, and Drfeggphd. I think that you all came to the same point from different directions.
I can honestly say that I think I "get it" more now than I did before (not saying much).
As far as being a hitwhore; Ill post a picture of a young shaved goat next time and we can compare hit counts between that and this. Headline will be "My young nanny...shaved".
Thrice Palermo
P.S. Or maybe its turtles all the way down...either way so long as my beer is cold.
Submitted by InkyFingers (user info) at 2004-11-29 09:53:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
and, after I hit my head it came to me...
What's that Doc?
The secret to time travel Marty. The flux capasitor!!!
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-11-29 09:21:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
drfeggphd: Relativity may decree the speed of light a universal constant, but Quantum Mechanics allows variations both above and below c over small scales. But in my inexpert opinion such effects should not be significant over astronomical scales.
He may be referring to conjecture that the speed of light has decreased (a little) with the increasing age of the universe. Although this would explain many features of the universe we see, it is not widely accepted, lacking the evidence such a revolutionary idea would require - and raising many new problems.
Submitted by drfeggphd (user info) at 2004-11-29 09:06:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by FuckTheArmy (user info) at 2004-11-29 05:51:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
....
To be precise the speed of light is not a constant maximum but an AVERAGE....
That means, while the expansion rate of our universe, whatever wierd shape it is, may speed up or slow down with time, it can't go faster than 'light'.
------------------------------------------------------
You're a physicist? I'm just a dumbass, but I think you're wrong about both of these, unless I'm
misinterpreting your wording.
Special relativity is based on the speed of light (in a vacuum) being a constant, for any
observer, in any reference frame. SR is still one of the two most accurately verified theories
in physics, as far as I know.
I see from other responses that people are missing an important implication of the expanding universe. Assuming a constant rate of expansion, the further something is from you, the faster it will appear to be moving away from you. This phenomenon is what led to the notion of an expanding universe in the first place.
And due to the size of the universe, there are portions of it which ARE in effect moving away from Earth at a speed faster than light. Light from these "invisible" areas will never reach us (unless, as Bart suggested, the "shape" of the universe is such that light eventually returns to a point it was at before.)
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2004-11-29 08:49:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think bart answered it best. +1 for him.
And another +1 for raising a good question. It was misunderstood by a lot of uberers, but it makes you think.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-11-29 08:40:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Below replies should be sufficient. +1 for encouraging high-brow debate.
Submitted by FuckTheArmy (user info) at 2004-11-29 05:51:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Look you've got a positive rating, hitwhore, so I'll just explain how it works for ya.
Firstly, cosmic background radiation doesn't actually appear to be quite constant. This suggests the big bang wasn't uniform. That probably means the big bang wasn't the initial act of creation, but it's essentially moot.
To be precise the speed of light is not a constant maximum but an AVERAGE. However it is the maximum transfer speed for information, meaning unless you can find a hole in the wall, you can't get here from there any faster.
That means, while the expansion rate of our universe, whatever wierd shape it is, may speed up or slow down with time, it can't go faster than 'light'.
Consequently the info from something that happened not too long after the universe "began" may be available, if the object was travelling fast enough; it would be technically possible, if the universe is expanding fast enough, to see a moment instantaneously after the big bang, but not the event itself.
It may be possible, under certain topologies of the space-time continuum, to see an the big bang itself; but due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle there's only so much we can know anyway - hence the requirement of all them god-fearers to need faith to prove god.
Enough theology. Cosmology aside, because I'm not an astrophysicist (I'm only a physicist), the basic fact is, we can't see our entire past. Consequently while we can see some of the past and figure out the possibilities, we'll never see the real beginning.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2004-11-29 03:11:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What's funny is, everyone seems to be obsessed with seeing the Big Bang too. Don't you all know that you ARE the Big Bang!? Every time you look in the mirror, or out the window, or at the starry sky, you ARE seeing the Big Bang!? We can't SEE the Big Bang in any other sense, because we were a part of it.
You can, however see the remnants of it all around you, in everything that is, was, and is yet to be. You can listen to the afterglow radiation that it left behind as well if you tune into the right radio frequency. It's called the background radiation, and it's the same no matter where you point your electromagnetic ears.
This is all true, but I am drunk and once again lack patience.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2004-11-29 03:04:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
A lot of other people seem to be complicating the question far too much. THe correct answer, i.e. the one that will stop your head from hurting, is the one I just gave. Haven't read all the comments though. Don't have the patience.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2004-11-29 03:01:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
The answer is fairly simple. The universe is expanding. The galaxies and stars that we see in the deep field of space did not form immediately in the universe's infancy. It took a while for the gasses to condense into the semi-ordered structures we can see. This is the exciting and interesting thing about studying the deep field of space and essentially looking into our past, because it offers us a real reference point for estimating the age of our universe, and can also give us clues into it's ultimate destiny.
Good question.
Submitted by bargled (user info) at 2004-11-29 02:54:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
anything that has been sucked into a black hole is projected forever onto the event horizon of the black hole, bart. the only problem is the redshift of the wavelengths.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2004-11-29 02:32:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Depending on the geometry of the universe, it's possible that you could see the Big Bang.
If you are assuming that the entire universe is just like a big three dimensional grid with the Big Bang at the origin and all light and matter moving out from there, the light will travel faster than the matter and therefore we will have already missed the images.
However, what if the universe is finite in size but not travelling surface? For example, what if it's round? If the universe is round, maybe we missed the images the first time they passed, but we have an opportunity to catch them the next time they come around.
Or, what if the light from the Big Bang has passed us and been reflected back? That would imply that there was something out there beyond the light which would also mean there were other universes.
More likely, what if the light changed on the way out? Let's say that the travelling light somehow got trapped in a black hole. Maybe the black hole existed in space or maybe the light changed forms and became a black hole. However it happened, the point is that the images from the Big Bang could still be out there, but they're trapped in a black hole.
For all we know, the black hole could be the equivalent of a universal archiver. Everything that has ever happened - a little bit of light from every second of every star's existence - has been captured in the black hole. If we were only able to extract that information, perhaps we could have an insight into everything that has ever happened in the universe.
The world may never know.
Submitted by bargled (user info) at 2004-11-29 02:27:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://physics.uwyo.edu/~mpierce/A1050/2004_11_22w.htm
Submitted by bargled (user info) at 2004-11-29 02:06:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You're talking about Olber's Pardox.
here's a link that'll explain it all:
http://physics.uwyo.edu/~mpierce/A1050/2004_11_22w_files/frame.html
Submitted by spoonman (user info) at 2004-11-29 01:29:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Plus 2 because I had to think.
Actually, I take back that last statement (except the part about the turtles). Gravity might slow us down to a speed less than the speed of light. I do agree this is rediculous, however.
I remember reading something about wether or not the universe was at terminal velocity (wether it would keep on expanding or collapse on itself). I don't remember what was believed would happen, though. I beleive we were just going to shoot out into space.
fuckety-fuck-fuck
Submitted by sublime (user info) at 2004-11-29 01:28:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
the answer is 12
Submitted by seanfogy (user info) at 2004-11-29 01:19:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by spoonman (user info) at 2004-11-29 01:11:11 (#)
Ranking: 1
It would NOT be possible to actually see the big bang if the universe's rate of expansion was faster than the speed of light. The light would never reach us.
'tis a good question, but it's turtles all the way down.
--------
So right you are. Ok, this might be getting a little silly, BUT if we were to leave a telescope 132,839,089,200,000,000,000,000 km away from where the big bang happened then the telescope would be able to see the big bang, but i guess it really wouldnt really matter because we wouldnt be able to get it back and collect the data.
Submitted by spoonman (user info) at 2004-11-29 01:11:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
It would NOT be possible to actually see the big bang if the universe's rate of expansion was faster than the speed of light. The light would never reach us.
'tis a good question, but it's turtles all the way down.
Submitted by kai070169 (user info) at 2004-11-29 01:09:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
There is light from stars that we haven't even seen yet, they are so far away. When we do finally perceive it's light for the first time, that will be the light it generated at the big bang. We will therefore see the big bang.
Confused yet?
Submitted by seanfogy (user info) at 2004-11-29 00:52:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It would be possible to actually see the big bang if the universe's rate of expansion was faster than the speed of light.
Since we don't know the universe's rate of expansion or when (also if) the big bang actually happened, let's just say:
rate of expansion = 600000 km/s (twice the speed of light)
universe's age = 14,000,000,000 years (random number)
If we wanted to see the big bang then we would have to be 132,839,089,200,000,000,000,000 km away from where the big bang happened.
So IF the rate of expansion was faster than the speed of light, we could technically see the big bang.
Submitted by Chronicles_of_College_Guy (user info) at 2004-11-29 00:38:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm going to take back my -2, but you really dropped the ball when you first posted this. Not mentioning the Big Bang is why so many people -2'd you at first.
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-29 00:23:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks Nico.
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-29 00:21:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ARRRR
Does that imply that matter did travel faster than the speed of light at some point due to the expansion of space? I didnt thing that happened. Even considering a relative doubling I didnt think that was possible.
Im still stuck on comparing the speed of the light from the big bang with the relative expansion speeds of the matter that was ejected and strewn through the expansion volume. Are not all of the particles that we might be able to gather/examine traveling in the same direction, on the same plane, as us? I know that the shape of the universe is not globular and may not fit into any simple geometric form but ccnsidering the size of the volume, isnt it all coming from the same relative "point"?
I need to let your response percolate. Thanks.
Submitted by Niko_Ender (user info) at 2004-11-29 00:11:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Man, people have large carrots up their arses.
I think I know which sat. you are talking about.
They have put one up to read the input from stars exhibiting breakdown which the media has associated with the "big bang". Ofcourse you cannot "look" at the big bang because "we" started from the same point of origin as that light.
They are going to measure the pattern of gamma ray bursts and see if they can pick up black hole formations. Personally, I have no idea what they expect but it will be interesting to read what they end up publishing.
+2 for having the balls to ask the questions in this place. FFS give people a chance. Most of you didn't even read what the guy asked.
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-29 00:05:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Despite all of your inputs my head still hurts.
Oh well.
Submitted by Arrrrrrrrrr (user info) at 2004-11-29 00:03:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
We don't see the big bang itself - just the light from up to a few hundred thousand years after. The light we see is not from our past, but from the past of matter that was next to us after the big bang, and got further from us at a higher speed than light because the space itself expanded.
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-28 23:56:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
My question has made me think. It must be that we will be able to deduce things about the "big bang" and not opticly "see". Seems obvious to me now. Perhaps residual effects of some sort, or the relative motions of particles other than those of light, will imply things about the early moments of the universe.
Submitted by will72 (user info) at 2004-11-28 23:49:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
wait--- are trying to sound stupid to hitwhore??? OMG call the uberpolice!
Submitted by will72 (user info) at 2004-11-28 23:48:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
my spelling is beyond terrible. i am sorry for offending people with spelling the "te". what the fudge.
Submitted by will72 (user info) at 2004-11-28 23:45:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
well about the big bang and seeing it. logically we shouldnt be able to...cmon thats obvious but when you think about light and maybe being able to see looooooooooooooooooooooooong ways off we can see the distant past. though we are only seeing a picutre of it, mind you. it also depends where te big bang occured geographiclly (sp). if it is a superduper long way then we have a chance because the light probaly has not hit us yet (by hit us i mean we can see it)... i think but im tired and not thinking straight. and fuck spell check and grammar cause i can roflcoptor lollerskates...ahem right...
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-28 23:44:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
To state slightly differently.
The light from an explosion will travel further/faster than any matter created in the explosion and ejected outward. Shouldnt the light of our creation event be long gone? If we are the matter..how can we see the light?
None of you have correctly addressed my question. Im sure its my fault but I truly am curious. Thanks for trying.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-11-28 23:42:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
You clearly don't know what a lightyear is
Submitted by stevendurel (user info) at 2004-11-28 23:41:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I apologise for my rating, then. If they say that you can in fact build a telescope to watch the Big Bang (which you didn't mention) then I have no idea how they would do that. You can't watch our matter, because it could not have travelled faster than light.
Again, if you had mentioned the Big Bang, you would not have gotten criticism.
Submitted by Chronicles_of_College_Guy (user info) at 2004-11-28 23:37:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"How did we beat the photons? Shouldnt that light, traveling at 'light speed' for billions of years, have passed this spot in space time long before we came to be here?"
---
Do you have any idea how far away we are talking. If something is a three billion light years away, guess how long it's going to take it to get here? Just guess...
Listen, junior. Apparently space is too big of a concept for you to grasp. Stick with your Yu-Gi-Oh collection.
Submitted by will72 (user info) at 2004-11-28 23:36:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
steve's description is vastly superior to my analogy about the mail. but hey im fourteen so whatever.
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-28 23:35:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You arent getting what I am getting at (my fault). They are basically saying that they hypothetically can see all the way to the big bang. All of the matter that makes us and our galaxy was there and then. How can we possibly see something that involves the creation of the matter that is us?
Re my education. Mostly history and lit but I remain curious. I suppose that I could look smarter if I didnt ask the question but...what the hell.
Submitted by stevendurel (user info) at 2004-11-28 23:31:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
I don't really see how you're confused. So I'll make this simple.
O..................................................X
Now, let's say that this is 5 billion years ago. We are O and X is a star.
O..................................<"X"............U
Now, this is 2 billion years ago. Where X was, the X has now become a U. Yet, the light of X is still travelling towards us.
O..<"X"................<"U"........................Y
Now, this is today. The light of X is a lot closer, and U is still further away, but we will never be able to know that Y is where X was. All we can do is watch the "rerun of space" to see X become U and then one day Y...yet, when we finally see Y, that will have already been gone too.
Do you get it now?
Submitted by will72 (user info) at 2004-11-28 23:29:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i wont "-2" you even though you are clearly a dumbass. our solar system is trillions of lightyears away from whatever we are receiving the light from. It took the light that long to reach us. think of it as sending mail from faraway. if its sent on jan 1 and arrives feb 20 well you are reading things that happend in the past. if on feb 20 that same person sent you a letter then on april first (around) you would read what happend feb 20. get it?
Submitted by kai070169 (user info) at 2004-11-28 23:25:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You are an idiot. Yes, even at the speed of light, it takes light that long to get here. It starts out really, really far away.
Grade 3 dropout?