I DO NOT HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF EDUCATION -[call me a simple senior
]-,SO THIS MAY SEEM A SILLY QUESTION WITH AN OBVIOUS  ANSWER.         
                                                               I
OCCASIONALY COME ACROSS MENTION OF THE BIG BANG THEORY, OR NEWS BITS
OF ANOUTHER MULTI BILLION LIGHT YEAR VIEW OF AN EVENT THAT OCCURRED
SHORTLY AFTER THE BIG BANG.  MY UNDERSTANDING - EVERYTHING STARTED
FROM A SPECIFIC POINT AT ASPECIFIC TIME -" BANG "- THEN WE [ formed
from the particles and gasses on their thirteen billion lightyear
voyage ] HAVE BEEN TRAVELLING AWAY FROM THE POINT OF CREATION AT HIGH
RATE OF SPEED FOR 130,000,000 CENTURIES                               
                                              MY QUESTION -IF WE , OR
THE DUST THAT WOULD FORM US , LEFT THAT BIG BANG CREATION   THIRTEEN
BILLION YEARS AGO ,WOULD NOT THE LIGHT BY WHICH WE WOULD SEE THE EVENT
[because light travels so much faster than us ] HAVE PASSED US AT THE
BEGINNING OF OUR JOURNEY , AND NOT BE BACK THERE STILL ,WAITING FOR US
TO VIEW ??                                                            
                SIMPLE BUT CLEAR ANSWER - FOR A SIMPLE BUT CLOUDY MIND
- PLEASE   THANKYOU.

Hello.

I think that the basic problem is in your statement, "MY UNDERSTANDING
- EVERYTHING STARTED FROM A SPECIFIC POINT..."


Astronomers do not believe that the "Big Bang" was an explosion
radiating from a specific point.

See:

"Where was the center of the Big Bang?
The Big Bang has no center. It is not an explosion radiating from a point."
- Edward Wright - UCLA Cosmology -  Frequently Asked Questions; 
See Illustrations at:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html


From the BBC:

"Because of its name many people think of the Big Bang as a kind of
explosion that happened at some specific point in space, but this
isn't correct, as the Universe didn't spring from one central ignition
point. Instead, during the Big Bang space was first created and then
stretched.
 The easiest way to understand this tricky concept is to think of the
Universe as a fruitcake in an oven. Imagine you are a bit of fruit
inside the cake. As it bakes, the cake rises and all the other bits of
fruit around you move further and further away. No matter whereabouts
in the cake you are, everything around you is moving away at the same
rate. But unlike the fruitcake, there is no centre to the Universe."
source:
BBC - Science & Nature > Space > Origins > Big Bang
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/origins/bigbang/index.shtml


From astronomer Dave Kornreich:

 "If the Big Bang occurred in a specific point in space, spewing
galaxies in all directions, then we would expect our galaxy to be one
of many galaxies sitting on an expanding shell of galaxies, with the
center of that shell being the point of the "Bang." This, however, is
not what we see, and not what the BB predicts.
 If we were on a shell of galaxies, we would see many galaxies when we
looked in directions along the shell, and few galaxies when we looked
perpendicular to (up out of or down into) the shell. Moreover,
distances and redshifts in such a scenario would depend on the
direction we were looking. As we looked tangent to the shell, we would
see many nearby galaxies with small redshifts. As we looked down into
the shell, we would see more distant galaxies with higher redshifts.
(Up out of the shell we would see only empty space.) This is not what
we see. Galaxies, distant and nearby, are evenly distributed all
around us."
source:
Cornell University - Ask an Astromer: "Can we find the place where the
Big Bang happened?"
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=71


Can we see back to the time of the Big Bang with telescopes?

Actually, no.  

The reason for this is not that light from the time of the Big Bang
would have already passed us, but rather because at the time of the
Big Bang the universe was too hot and dense for light to escape.


From Scientific American magazine: 

"Until the age of about 300,000 years, the young universe consisted of
no more than a cloud of photons tightly coupled with ionized
precursors of matter. This was a "dark" time--no light could escape
the burgeoning universe since all the photons were trapped and
scattered within the plasma of ionized matter. As the universe cooled,
however, conditions finally began to allow stable atoms to form,
releasing the photons from matter?s grip and creating the beginnings
of what researchers have termed the Cosmic Microwave Background
(CMB)."
source: Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000EBE39-691E-1CEE-93F6809EC5880000


"When you read about cosmology, you might have read about the cosmic
microwave background (CMB). Before the CMB originated, the universe
was opaque to light. So, we can never see beyond the CMB, and due to
this, we can never see to the instant of the Big Bang."
source: Cornell University - Ask an Astromer:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=167


From NASA: 

"For approximately the first 400,000 years after the Big Bang, the
universe was a seething cauldron of matter (electrons, protons,
neutrons, and a very small percentage of heavier atomic nuclei), and
light (photons). Since photons scatter or bounce off electrons, the
universe was opaque. As space expanded, the universe cooled and the
electrons combined with the protons (and other atomic nuclei) to
create the first atoms, primarily hydrogen. The first light of
creation could finally be freed from its pinball-like interactions
with the electrons. The universe became transparent."
source:
NASA: "Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) - Unveiling the Early Universe"
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010612mapfacts.html


Although we can't see all the way back to the time of the Big Bang,
the Hubble Space Telescope has recently capture images of objects
dating from 700 million to 900 million years after the Big Bang.

See:
"Hubble photographs reach back to universe as toddler," Knight Ridder,
Sep. 29, 2004:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/robert_s_boyd/9793006.htm

HubbleSite.org: "Hubble Approaches the Final Frontier: The Dawn of Galaxies"
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/28/

----------
search terms:
"big bang" "specific point"
"center of the big bang"
"universe was opaque" "big bang"
"big bang" years "no light" 

I hope this helps.

HEY- TIME FOR ME TO SLOW DOWN AND WRAP MY MIND AROUND NEW [to me]
IDEAS.    FOR YOUR ANSWER - 4 STARS .    FOR MAKING ME THINK - $7.00

If the Universe is a fruitcake in an oven how did the Chef get out to
buy the ingredients?

juggler-ga said "if". Meaning, not true.

If jugglere didn't use "if", then it could be true. And he is not
lying. That is if there are gazilions of universes.

"Uni" signifies one only, okay. So does unique, or one of a kind. But
there are so many uniques. So there could be so many universes too.
Universe is a kind also. (Who could prove there are not many
universes? Has someone got of our universe yet? Everybody (not
incluing me) believes that there is only one universe because
everybody (now include me there) is inside our universe. Blah, blah,
blah.)

Anyway, I believe billiards of chefs, in one set only (another set
could be warrior tots blowing mind-boggling balloons), baked billiards
of universes inside mind-boggling ovens. They did cakes, so there must
be stores to buy their ingredients from. (One of the igredients is
bobberino2-ga.) Blah, blah.

Another subset could be non-chefs baking mind-boggling eggs inside
mind-boggling microwave ovens. Blah.

-----------
I learned somewhere in Google that in British Numbering System, 1
billiard is 1*10^15. No kidding.

bobberino2:
Thank you for the tip.
-juggler

Hey ticbol-ga,
I think you've been eating too much of that cosmic fruitcake...

I'd just like to thank you for teaching me something new - I always
thought the Big Bang came from a single point. This question and
answer has been really interesting. :)

Although too much thinking about the universe makes my brain ache!

Hello, sfojpl-ga.

Ummm, I really don't know if one or some of the fruitcakes I've tasted
so far came from that Big Bang. The cakes seemed to taste almost the
same, year in and year out. Or, depending on the visible molds on
them, and maybe on their ages (I think most of these fruitcakes are
just recycled: you keep some of those you received every year, then by
random picking, you get one of those 1958 fruitcakes and send it to
somebody else as a gift before Christmas. And you in turn perhaps
receive more fruitcakes of vintages 678 BC, 1405, 1999, etc.), some
tasted differently. I paid no attention on those odd tastes, though. I
never thought these fruitcakes would become a topic in GA. (Neither
did I think of a GA then also, so....)

I doubt if anyone of those came from that particular Big Bang. As
mentioned by juggler-ga, the cake expanded or the ingredients moved
away from the perceived center in constant (no acceleration) velocity.
So if I am also an ingredient of that Big Bang, I couldn't have got
hold of a fellow ingredient. Because the fellow ingredients that took
off as close as possible to me from that center should miles away from
me at anytime before I was introduced to these everpresent fruitcakes.
Because from that center I think we moved away radially---not in
parallel. So as time went/goes by, we went/go farther and farther away
from each other.
Because of the constant velocites, no other later-leaving fellow
ingredient could have catched up or come closer to me, and I couldn't
have catched up or overtaken any earlier-moving fellow ingredient. (I
am talking earthly Physics.)

----
Why should the beginning of the, er, our universe be sometimes thought
of as a Big Bang. Why not Big Collapse, Mind-boggling Shrink, or the
likes. This could be corollary to that other popular line of thought
on the beginning or non-beginning of our universe (It's been there all
the time). Like a Big Bang happening somewhere, why not a Big Collapse
somewhere also? Analogous to the black holes, only this time, due to
the mind-boggling masses, the "ingredients" wouldn't dissapear yet.
And a total black hole wouldn't be attained.

---------
Why is our universe thought of as flat?
If it were flat (whether curved or straight) then there must be things
controlling, if not regulating, our universe to stay flat.
That is why there should be more than one universe. Some
forces/universes/etc, closer to our universe, must be wittingly or
unwittingly made/make our universe flat.
Easier to think is our universe is being pushed at two opposite
directions ("Above and Bellow").
More tickling to think is these "forces" are actually pulling our
universe from two opposite directions. Imagine: Above and Below sides
of our universe. Those "forces" at Above side are applying their pull
on the Below side. And those "forces" at the Below side are applying
theirs on the Above side.

Being pushed, or being pulled as mentioned above, caused/causes our
universe to be flattened. If the opposing "forces" are of equal
"strength", then our universe is a straight flat. If the opposing
"forces" are unequal in "strength", then our universe is a curved
flat.
If pushed, our flattened universe is "open" at its edges. Ingredients can escape.
If pulled, then our flattened universe is "closed" at its edges.
Ingredients cannot escape.

Or, our flattened universe is not pushed/being-pushed or not
pulled/being-pulled by two opposing "forces".
It could be cut/being-cut by lawn-mower-like "forces" at the Above
side and Bellow side.
Mind-boggling blades, eh!
Or, "things" similar to our earthly microbes do eat any ingredient
going beyond the "demilitarized zones" above and below our universe.

---------
The universe is flat. Nebulas are flat. Our galaxy the Milky Way is
flat. Our solar system is flat. Saturn's Belt is flat.

I wonder why.

Nobody questioned my 2nd comment above, so let me question it.

What Saturn's Belt?
>>>Well, many call it ring or rings. I see them revolving around the
stomach or middle or half-body of Saturn, so, belt.
Rings are for fingers, earlobes, noses, lips, navels (maybe), but not
around the bellies of people.
Or, maybe I should have written, Saturn's Hula Hoop.

Constant velocities? 
>>>No. I meant the same constant velocity for all ingredients. It may
not be true, but it is in line with juggler-ga's supposition.

No acceleration? What happened to F=ma? There must be acceleration.
And if F and m are constants, then acceleration must be constant also.
What about v = at? If a and v are constants, then t should be constant
also. And if t is constant, then...cannot be. Time cannot be constant;
it changes.
>>>Okay, so there must be a. And since t varies, and v was said to be
constant, hence a must vary for constant v. Then if a varies, then one
of the F and m should vary, or both F and m should vary. But m is
constant. So F is the one changing? Why would F change? How? What
would add to the initial F?
If m is the one that changes, then the ingredients add mass as they go
farther and farther from the center. So a speck of dust could become a
star in time?
No way.
Therefore, in order not to complicate matters, let us just be content
or limit ourselves to what was assumed. That v is constant. It is
about fruitcakes, remember.

Of course you know or could think why the Belt, solar system, Milky
Way and nebulas are flat.
>>>Saturn's Rings and the sun's planets are easy. They revolve about,
or almost perpendicular to, the axes of rotation of Saturn and the
sun, respectively. They cannot fly away out of their orbits because of
the gravitational pull of Saturn or the sun. They align in a band at
the middle because that's where the greatest mass or the centers of
gravity of Saturn or the sun.
But what about the galaxies, nebulas? They have single bodies of mass
at their centers that rotate on axes? Or, the centers be
conglomerations of bodies of masses that rotate about a common axis
for each group? Huge "black holes" at their centers? Rotating black
holes?
And, what about the universe? It is flat because its ingredients
revolve around the universe's center? The universe has a center? Big
Bang? A single Big Bang? It is not a Big Bang but a single rotating
source that releases matter by force? By many "bangs"?

No!

Being human is cool. We can play answers to our own questions. Since
we do not know so much about our universe we find our universe
interesting. What could ever happen to a person who knows everything?
I think he may wish to die for good. : >

Where did you get the idea that our universe is "flat"? the universe
exists in four, possibly more, dementions, the only reference ive ever
heard to a universe that is "flat" or "curved" is when talking about
Einstiens views of gravity, which is simplified so that we can imagine
it, just try picturing a "curved" 4-d universe and youll find out that
it's a lot simpler just to pretend its flat and use that terminology

Actually no answer is absolute. Sir Issac Newton said on his death bed
that scientists, like himself, are like little boys at the seashore
contemplating things they really don't understand. We can never really
KNOW absolutley what the right answer is. However, scientists battling
for funding and white paper recognition will come up with wild
empirically unproven theories only to be debunked by a space mission
like Cassina-Huyghens.

The standard thinking which has not been absolutley debunked yet is
that the big bang started with a created quantum singularity the size
of the head of a pin at a specific point in space. Nobody knows where
that point is. Theorectically everything radiated outward to form an
eggshaped eliptoid shape today. Spinning galaxies are an example of
vortices created by a vast explosion. There is theorectically an outer
edge that is still expanding. Pulsars appear to be the outer markers
as its the farthest we can see with the Arecibo PR type
radio-telescopes. Scientists think that legacy-gravity will one day
pull it all back, but I doubt it.

Yes the light waves/particles from the big bang would pass the first
Adam (for creationists) many billions of years before he was created
from the stuff of the big bang. I don't see why that's important. But
the sound (or actually the radio waves) from the big bang can still be
heard (or seen) today. It was discovered by two scientists (Penzias
and Wilson) at Bell Labs 40 some years ago
http://www.bell-labs.com/history/laser/invention/cosmology.html .

If you want to see the remnants or legacy of that big bang
(omni-directional radio noise from outer space) turn your
rabbit-earred TV set on. Find a blank channel with white noise (snow).
Turn the brightness down until you just see little random specks of
light popping through the darkness. That is theorectically legacy
noise from the big bang. Penzias and Wilson proved that it comes from
all directions. So explain what it is if you don't believe that. Its
funny how they accidently discovered it while trying to track down
this strange noise entering their microwave antenna in New Jersey.

Spooky
"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to
have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting
myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell
than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered
before me." (Sir Isaac Newton - circa March 20, 1727 )

Lottsa deep thoughts out there, [and some lite ] . All appreciated !  
                                                                 
Thanx all  - bobberino2

It comes from all directions
yes likes from... stars!

the noise is no proof of the big bang
certainly possible

Source:
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch01c.htm

juggler-ga quoted:

As the universe cooled,
however, conditions finally began to allow stable atoms to form,
releasing the photons from matter?s grip and creating the beginnings
of what researchers have termed the Cosmic Microwave Background
(CMB)."

my understanding of cooling is that energy (heat) has to go somewhere
in order for an object to be cooled.  if we're talking about the
universe cooling, then where is the heat going?