It's because the space between us and that galaxy has been expanding the entire time that the light has been traveling. So even though that light only left its galaxy 13 billion years ago, the light wave has been getting stretched and red-shifted by the expansion of space. It's like an ant walking on the surface of a balloon as someone is blowing the balloon up.
Your link is missing an 'h' at the beginning.A distant galaxy thirty-five billion light years away has been discovered but how is that possible if the universe is 13.5 or 14.2 billion years old?
Edinburgh astronomers find most distant galaxy
Early data from a new space telescope has enabled Edinburgh astronomers to locate the most distant galaxy ever found.www.ed.ac.uk
Or somebody misplaced a decimal point and screwed up the math
Bang!
For starters those types of conservatives are raised thinking that opinions and deeply held religious beliefs supercede facts.
Funny cause they also run their mouths saying facts over feelings while spouting their bullshit.
Other people have already answered your question (even though you coulda Googled it yourself).
The problem is that the Big Bang is so poorly understood by scientists, that at least two words in this sentence don't have clear meanings.
My incorrect opinion is that what came before was a contracting universe which caused the big bang. I'm apparently incorrect about this idea because of entropy and because I haven't adequately wrapped my mind around the physical distances that make it impossible for all of the spread out masses to recombine. At least I think that's why I'm wrong. I could be wrong about that.
Some? I think that should be "most" if not "all."
If our entire universe is simply a single cell in a being and one of the cells split then that could be the big bang.
Ha
Hawking solved that entropy problem before he died, using imaginary time.
It looks like the OP's question has been answered. Meanwhile....
I don't know if this "most distant galaxy" claim has held up -- maybe it has -- but everyone should know that the early James Webb findings -- especially determining redshift through photometric means -- are possibly flawed due to the dustiness surrounding these most distant objects, which causes them to appear redder (and hence further) than they actually are.
I assume you mean The Big Bang, that is, the very beginning at time t=0. Yeah, that's beyond observation. But amazingly, scientists have a pretty good understanding of the Universe at time 1 second after the very beginning. After all, Weinberg's classic The First Three Minutes was written in 1977. (Of course, he doesn't cover the first half second. But after that, the physics is pretty solid.)
One (predominant) view holds that there was no "t=0", because the universe is boundless. So if you went backwards in time in our universe, you would never reach a boundary and would go forever.
Well, Vilenkin's "eternal inflation" imagines that the faster-than-light inflation is going on "everywhere," but once in a while a universe "decays" out of the inflation -- like ours did -- the "decay" resulting in a phase transition, slowing the superluminal expansion down to something considerably more manageable, and this sudden decay releases an extraordinary amount of heat that provides sufficient energy to convert into the quarks and electrons and subsequently protons and neutrons. So our Universe is a decay product of this ongoing inflation, while other pocket universes also decay into their own brand of universe, which we will NEVER be able to detect since superluminal inflation is going on between these universes. Or so the thinking goes. Vilenkin does suggest a way to support at least a part of the idea.
If your theory is true then why is this discovery unique? One galaxy out of billions?! You do bring up the question never to be answered by saying the "observable universe". We will never know what is beyond that.
Correct, there are billions of galaxies far away from us. It isn't unique. According to the story it's the most distant galaxy found. But there are lots of others in that same ballpark.
Correct, by definition we can't know anything beyond the observable universe. At best we might be able to make some conjectures about it by, for example, measuring some curvature in the observable universe. But so far all efforts to detect any curvature have failed, so we know that the universe is within 1% of perfect flatness. It looks like the universe is infinite, but we can never know for sure.
Eternal inflation with random fluctuations. Cells in a multiverse-being. Imaginary time. Universe decay.