emil

In reply to your answer, my first thought is that the 46 billion light years distance you state as fact, is based on the very assumption I am questioning, it is not a fact, but a theory.The problem here is that we do not have direct, current and applicable evidence of objects receding at stated speeds in the expansion universe theory, only past/dated evidence.How can one explain away the question of using inappropriate data in the formulation of the expansion theory, whether by a physicist or a computer model? Can this still be termed as Science using precise measurement, or is this the process of square shaped data being hammered through a round hole till it fits? I`m certainly no scientist , but it seems to me that a models` scientific value is only as good as the scientific value of the data put into it, therefore, a theory postulating current expansion of the universe based on non-current data immediately falls over. I`m not the best at illustrating my point with examples, but wouldn`t it be something like using earth surface data taken millions of years ago to produce a map of the current world? If somebody has argued the point I`m making here before, I would be very grateful to the person who could point me in the direction of that material. I have only just discovered this website and I would like to thank anyone who takes the time to discuss this with me.

The expanding universe theory illustrates that objects viewed in space are moving away from one another and the further we look into space, the faster this movement is detected. My problem with that theory is that the further we look into space, the further we go back in time, due to light having a finite velocity, so we are using non-current observational data going back as far as billions of (light) years to come up with a theory of a currently expanding universe.If we have no way of knowing what velocity distant objects are CURRENTLY travelling at, but are only measuring the redshift of their image emitted aeons ago, then this theory doesnt make sense to me. In fact it seems that all it illustrates is that the further in time you look back , the faster the universe WAS expanding, and the closer to the current time you view objects, the slower the expansion is occurring, so it must mean the expansion is slowing.