Question for Astrononerds

So people familiar with the matter tell us, to look really far away is to look back in time.

If Milky Way is moving through space at a speed you may know (do you?)
and we know the trajectory (do we?)
now we put that in relation to the speed of light,
would that mean it is possible to look at a younger Milky Way?

That if we mathmatically figure out the coordinates, we could see home like a couple of millions of years ago?

a reply to: Peeple

If you could travel faster than light, you could catch up and overtake the photons being emitted from an earlier time and observe them, yes.

a reply to: TDDAgain

Don't we though?
Since we travel on Earth + the expansion of the universe, aren't we travelling faster? At least occasionally?

a reply to: Peeple

everything we can see in the sky is in relation to our position in the universe...

We couldn't see our planet from any point in time but now...

IF we were a million light years away... we would be seeing the light from a million years ago IF we looked at our galaxy...

And we would need some hard core tech to see a planet in another galaxy

originally posted by: Peeple
So people familiar with the matter tell us, to look really far away is to look back in time.

If Milky Way is moving through space at a speed you may know (do you?)
and we know the trajectory (do we?)
now we put that in relation to the speed of light,
would that mean it is possible to look at a younger Milky Way?

That if we mathmatically figure out the coordinates, we could see home like a couple of millions of years ago?

So you might actually be proposing is that sight is faster than light. 🤔

a reply to: Akragon

IF we seperate the universe in a grid would we know where we were a million years ago?

a reply to: Peeple
Everything moves, nothing ever stand still.

When you look at the star night, it's not the actual positions you see, it's the position from where their light was emitted from. So if you look at the sun during day, you are like 8 minutes deceived on it's actual position.

a reply to: Peeple

In order to measure the speed you would need to reference two points, relativity and all that jazz. No matter which other galaxy you use, that measurement would never exceed the speed of light. Basically you need to either assign our galaxy as the stationary object and measure the speed that other galaxies are receding at individually or assign them as the stationary point and measure the speed we are receding from them at. I've seen it stated Andromeda and the Milky Way are moving toward each other anywhere from 100 km/s to 300 km/s. Although at 300 km/s it would defy the known laws of physics so not sure how they calculated that figure.

Phage is pretty good with this type of question, might be worth sending him a PM.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: TDDAgain

Don't we though?
Since we travel on Earth + the expansion of the universe, aren't we travelling faster? At least occasionally?

No

When a comet moves we see the tail which supports that the comet is moving.

If all of the stars in the universe are constantly moving why don’t we see all of the stars as streaks of light in the night sky?

a reply to: Akragon

a reply to: Buvvy

The tail of a comet is no sign of movement. The tail allways points away from the sun and has nothing to do with the direction the comet is moving.

It is material that is evaporating because of the heat of the sun.

In other words, when a comet is going towards the sun it will seem like the tail is behind - but if the comet is going away from the sun it flys the same directions as its tail.

So if we are looking and listening for signals from a planet a thousand light years away. Then we are looking back in time at that planet. A culture could be 200 years more advanced than us, but we wouldn’t receive their radio signals for approximately another 700 years? Perhaps the universe isn’t so empty after all. Just far away.

a reply to: TDDAgain

If you travel faster then the speed of light does that mean you are traveling at the speed of dark ?

a reply to: Buvvy

They are not moving at the same speed as earth. And yes, there is visible proof of them moving - just not in they way you described it.

Look up "redshift" and "blueshift" in the light of stars.

Depending if a star moves away from earth or towards it, the light color of the star shifts. It gets red shifted when moving away and blue shiftet when moving towards us.

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Haha, good question, but on a serious note, the speed of dark would be the same velocity than the speed of light

a reply to: Peeple

One time travel hypothesis suggests you would need to physically travel to where the Earth was located in the galaxy during the time you planned to visit.
I’m assuming if you did that the Earth is no longer located there, so some other force is needed to peer back in time from that point.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: TDDAgain

Don't we though?
Since we travel on Earth + the expansion of the universe, aren't we travelling faster? At least occasionally?

Ummm....no....we NEVER travel faster than light....read up on Einstein

On the positive side, your statement above explains all of your past uninformed posts.....

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Akragon

IF we seperate the universe in a grid would we know where we were a million years ago?

we actually have a pretty good idea of approx. where we are in the known universe in relation to everything else we can see...

originally posted by: Buvvy
When a comet moves we see the tail which supports that the comet is moving.

If all of the stars in the universe are constantly moving why don’t we see all of the stars as streaks of light in the night sky?

a reply to: Akragon

Well stars are too far away to see any tale IF they happen to have one... gravity would pull any kind of ejecta back into the star anyways... We can't see stars moving because of the extreme distances we're dealing with...

im getting a flat earthy vibe here....