Likekinds

Great. Thanks.

Very much so. Thanks!

My nemesis was math. I have no idea how the age of a given object is calculated. But if I am correct, when it is determine that the light we observe from an object has been traveling for 2 billion years, we can say the object is 2 billion years old. I have trouble understanding this. If the light we observe at a given time has been traveling for 2 billion years, this should (I think) tell us only that the object was in place 2 billion years, ago. What I can't grasp is how this gives us the overall age of the object. We can only see the object at an instant in time. Who can say that the object wasn't emitting/reflecting light for another billion years before it emitted/reflected the light we can now observe? What I'm getting at is, the object didn't materialize instantly and began shedding light. First, there had to be formative years, maybe billions of them. It takes about 8 minutes for sunlight to reach Earth, but we know the sun is more than 8 minutes old. What am I misunderstanding or failing to connect, here?

I did not get an email indicating I had replies to my question. I stopped by to check, anyway. I have a page full of replies. Thanks to all!

Very interesting and informative. Now, I will ask my second question before giving you guys a break. Thank you.

Hi, All, I have no camera or telescope, so I wont be making contributions in that area. I have thousands of pictures from NASA, Hubble, etc. Just looking at these pictures, I get lost in time. I do fear, if I were viewing the Heavens from such as the James Webb Space Telescope, I would be in such awe, I might never return to 'reality'. I do hope questions will be considered a form of contribution. I have lots of them, most from early childhood, on. I have limited formal education and hope to put my questions to those with a good background in astronomy. What might be considered common knowledge to those folks, might well add to my fascination of the Universe. First question. I read so much about more and more powerful telescopes. It is said they now are able to peer at the very edge of the Universe. I don't understand this. I thought it was generally accepted that there is no end to the Universe (as we know it) and therefore no 'edge'. I'm wondering. When the writers of these essays refer to the edge of the Universe, could they actually be referring to a point in time rather than a place in space? The deeper we look into space. the farther back in time we go. Theoretically, we could approach a time where there is nothing to see as the stars would not have yet come into existence. If I am correct, this point in time would occur in all directions. As there is no up or down, east or west in space, there is no 'place' in space, therefore no edge. So I ask you, was the word 'edge' used as a matter of convenience when time was what was actually meant? Somehow, I'm not quite ready to accept that there is an actual, literal edge to our Universe. Thanks