So then there's parts of the universe currently that we will never see ever unless wormholes etc.

But if the grids don't get bigger they are the same distance, always. Otherwise the two objects are, in fact, moving. If there is no center of the universe then where'd the big bang happen?

Btw I'm really not trying to sound like I'm arguing. I'm actually enjoying this conversation most people I talk to just go "oh, huh, yea that's crazy....so did you want to order something?"

but isn't "space expanding" just matter/objects spreading apart from each other? space isn't a physical thing it's the absence of physical things. So, space expanding in this spot faster than this spot just means these two objects are moving away from each other faster than these other two things are moving away from each other. This still doesn't solve the issue that if the Earth is x distance away from the hypothetical center of the universe (something afaik we haven't determined its location) where we are seeing this light come from, that light theoretically can't be from the big bang, other wise it would imply that the Earth was in this location before the big bang occurred, or that light would've passed through here already.

​

If you're saying space expands faster than light in certain spots in the universe fine that happens, but saying that means the distance between Earth and the hypothetical center of the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light meaning Earth has traveled faster than the speed of light. Which is impossible according to our understanding of physics.

​

So with that, I see it as a few possible explanations..

​

1. The light we are seeing today from 13 billions years ago (i.e. 13 billion light years away) was, in fact, not the first lights after the big bang.

2. The lights we are seeing are just "the earliest lights after the big bang" that we've seen and "The first lights after the big bang" is simply click-bait titles. This means that we will never see any light source from the initial big bang or shortly there after because that light has already passed us by. (hypothetically we could see the refraction from a large gravitational force bending said light back but for it to bend back in exactly the same way to reflect something understandable seems impossible.)

3. The lights we are seeing are from the opposite side of the universe from a source that is expanding just as rapidly (but not at the speed of light) from us and we can actually see the center of the universe -- We know we've seen things that are moving away from us, but have we seen anything moving the exact opposite direction from us? Specifically multiple things?

4. the big bang is a lie, everything is just floating around nothing is moving away from a specific point.

​

These are the things that confuse me every time some one mentions the "First lights of the universe" how can that possibly be? regardless of the expansion of space moving faster than the speed of light.

No I understand how the speed of light works. What I don't understand is how earth, sun, solar system, physical matter. Beat photons "from the beginning of the universe" so if it took this light 13 billion years to reach us , it must've taken far longer for us to get to this exact location we are at when we saw it. Meaning a far greater amount of light has already gotten to this point and past. Nothing travels faster than light. So how is it we as physical objects are seeing the fastest thing in the universe just now get here? It's like if grandma left at the same time as the mailman and somehow getting to her house first.

The only other explanation is that all the matter of the universe did not come from the big bang and "we" we're already here.

Please note I use we not as humans but as a place holder for our solar system or our location.

The thing I've never understood is "we're looking at the first light after the big bang" this is what they say every time we look deeper into space. If this light is just now hitting us and it's 13 some odd billion years old. How the hell did we get here before the light after the big bang. So whatever light we're seeing is actually NOT the first light after the big bang. Not by a long shot or am I overthinking this?