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.
