The universe was not a finite(?) space like a room.

All objects that we can see can not be farter than the age of the universe in light years.
That not implie that the universe was 28 billions light years wide (14 billions in each directions), only that the light of objects farter than this distance dont have reach us now.

BTW, the farters objects that we can see are certainly extinct now.

Suppose that the nearest star (the sun) turn black instantly, we will dont know anything about it for 8 minutes, the time it take to the light to travel between the sun and the earth.

Sorry for my bad English, I hope you have understand my POV :-)


>I just watched a TV show (1 of 3) called "Mysteries of Deep Space". In it they repeated the current belief that the big bang happened 15 billion years ago.
>
>They then described the Hubble 'deep field' study and related that they figured that they found galaxies around the age of 14 billion years old. They describe this as 'this light that we are seeing now was emitted 14 billion years ago'.
>
>Here's what I don't 'get'...
>
>If the big bang happened 15 billion years ago and they are seeing light that is 14 billion years ago, shouldn't they expect to see MORE things there (rather than less) simply because 14 billion years ago things were far more compressed than they are now (compressed in the sense that 14 billion years ago is far far CLOSER to the CENTRE of the big bang and so things were all much closer together).
>
>Also, based on the trajectories of some of these expanding bodies, shouldn't they be able to zero in directly on the big bang itself?
>
>I think I must be missing something in this logic. What is it?