Hubble's observations of distant galaxies showed an increase in redshift with distance which is conventionally interpreted as an accelleration in expansion with distance. This has led to all sorts of speculation as to what might be causing such an effect. I have a problem with the statement that distant galaxies are moving away faster. Not the faster bit, but the word "are". In truth we have no idea what they are doing at this point in time, we only know that they were moving away faster when the light which left them billons of years ago started its journey to us. Our view of the universe is down a cone through time with events happening further back in time the further they are from us. So if further away from us means further back in time, Hubble's observations can be interpreted as an accelleration in expansion with distance back in time. Which in turn can be stated as a decelleration in expansion as we come forward in time. In other words the rate of expansion is slowing down, which is what might be expected.
Surely somebody must have thought of this before. Where is the error in Logic?
A corollary of the idea that accelleration varies proportionally with distance from us is that we must be at a unique point inthe universe, which is most unlikely. The idea that it changes proportionally with time would apply univerally.
