In article , "Nicolaas Vroom"
writes:

"Phillip Helbig---undress to reply"
schreef in bericht ...
In article , "Nicolaas Vroom"
writes:

What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.

It means that the universe now is 7 times larger than when the light was
emitted.

Are you sure you mean universe ?
Does this picture http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html
proves your point of view ?
What that picture shows is an image of the past and not what
the present situation is.
In fact this picture says nothing IMO about the total Universe.

That is what it means assuming that the universe is described by the
Friedmann-Lemaitre equations, i.e. that it a) is described by general
relativity and b) it is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales (for
which there is observational evidence, so this is not really an
assumption). It also assumes that the image above was caused by photons
travelling from the galaxies to the CCD in the camera, and not put there
by angels or whatever. Yes, one can question all assumptions, and I
think it is only after several pages in their big book that Russell and
Whitehead prove that 1+1=2, but explicitly stating all
assumptions---especially those which we have good reason to believe are
true---hampers communication.

For more comments look he
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/Hubble-Faq.htm#balloon

That is ALL it means, without additional knowledge/
Implying that this last could change your answer ?

Sure. If I know the parameters Omega, lambda and H, I can calculate the
light-travel time and so on.

If we know the cosmological parameters (from other observations), then
we can calculate any distance and any velocity we want at any time we
want.

How do you know that ?

See the assumptions above.

Is this not too optimistic ?

Why do you think so?

What are the other observations ?
Gravitational lenses ?

Yes, and many others, such as the m-z relation for supernovae, the CMB
etc.