Let's see; the universe was 750 million years old when the light left the galaxy, but it did not get here until now?
Did we get here faster than the light since we had to wait 13 billion years. Or were we here all ready when the light left that galaxy? How big is the universe? Did the mass of the universe expand faster than the speed of light?

The assumption is the light measured today took 13 billion years. And this light that is leaving the galaxy today will reach us 13 billion years from now. We are presumed to have formed in another part of the universe and there is no "central origin point" of the big bang. Unfortunately pinning this origin moment down is very vague since time and space were not supposed to be in existence yet. Yes, their are revisions to the big bang that state that conditions of the early universe may have supported movements of matter faster than light. This is supposed to explain away the very even frequency response or "horizon problem" that exists when looking for a big bang.

Unfortunately the fuzziness of the images as perceived is supposed to indicate earlier formations of stars, but the real truth of the matter is that it is only fuzzy and vague because our instruments are operating outside their optimal range. The universe gives no indication whatsoever that if we could peer back 750 million further years "distant" that we would not also find fully formed galaxies in abundance, requiring the age to be perpetually increased! 13 billion years, 20 billion, 30, 50, 100....etc!

As I mentioned in my post, the concepts contained in Einstein's relativity theories are only partially applied to the universe. Apply them universally and we are forced to realize that we cannot assign an age to the universe and that time assumes infinite relative positions to the observer.

Einstein's mass energy equation makes mass and energy interchangeable. You ask what is my definition of energy. Basically I have had to redefine energy and give it a more comprehensive definition. It's former definition states that energy "The capacity of a physical system to do work." This is inadequate. If mass can equal energy then energy is not just the ability to do work - energy really is the physical system.

So atomic mass, to me, is simply movements of energy. This energy exists in waves, wave packets and fields and forms the atom and its component parts. I think that mass is the illusion. It never really existed. It only seems to exist from a finite perspective.

Does water exist or do hydrogen and oxygen atoms exist? Water is the perception, but understanding the atoms and the bonding process the leads us to our understanding of why water exists and is more precise. The same is true for mass and energy. Does mass exist or does just energy exist? I think we will find that to truly understand mass we need to be more precise and break it down into its component waves and their properties and these energy movements.

SDAI-Tech1