why do we have observations of things that are hundreds of lightyears away?

you cant prove that theyre actually that far away

In about the 17th century, we began to conceive of a universe larger than what is visible to the human eye. We invented the telescope, a device that affords us to see farther, and in detail commensurate with the technique employed in the device's production. Since then, we've made better and better telescopes, until the latest receive information in spectra beyond the visual, which we can, by analysis, convert to images.

As to your assertion that the distance of these images, no, there if no proof that they represent clearly what is hundreds of light years away. They do, however, represent _something_, and that something, by logical inference, is a vista composed of celestial bodies that are hundreds of light years away.

There is some question, of course, whether the data our machines provide us is valid--and we have only the machines themselves to manipulate to determine those data's validity. It might be the case that we have build ourselves elaborate and expensive phantasmagoria, presenting images that have no connection with reality. However, based on our understanding of the natural laws taken advantage of in their construction, if the data were illusory, we would be obliged to question what "reality"actually meant; for, it would not be what is evident to the senses but something else unavailable by any device.

And, not to sound too haughty, but "hundreds of light years" is a paltry amount in the scope of contemporary astronomy. We have observations of objects _billions_ of light years away. You might quibble over what constitutes an "observation" at that distance; but, there are data and, by the standard of my previous argument, they represent something real.

There is ample room to debate what "real" means in this context, given that the objects we purport to observe hundreds of light years away have basically zero influence on us. We must assume, for the purpose of inquiry, an entirely foreign realm populated with objects beyond our reach, that belongs more to the transcendental than the immediate mode of our apprehension.

Yet,one might object that there is no discrete boundary between what is immediately apprehensible and what is apprehensible on through the medium of technology. If the difference be merely quantitative, the argument is, I admit, beyond my capacity; however, if it be qualitative, then I would object, whereas every instance of apprehension is attributable to some technology, even if it be co

Question:
Big Bang occurred ~14B years ago
Light does not exist from matter past the observable universe because we receive light equivalent in age to the time it it took to get to us. There is no transmitted light before the big bang. Expansion of space happens at the same time as light traveling, and so we can only see the light as accounted for this expansion (expansion is not a finite boundary, but a transformation I think).

Does this mean that past the unobservable universe might be matter that exists in the same frame of time as us, but its light that reaches us does not?
Does this mean such matter is likely to exist, but we cannot prove its existence?

>>16715537
Variance between local and global empirical data does not invalidate local data.

>>16715716
As I understand it, using concepts like "distance," "light," and "matter" when talking about whatever is beyond the cosmic horizon doesn't really work, because those things are all characteristic of our experience of our particular universe.

>>16715523 (OP)
cause the light is that many years old