On 25 May 2004 10:28:59 -0700, (David Jones)
wrote:

Sorry I can't buy that. I read the article and I'm no Astrophysist
but... If the speed of light is a constant and the universe is some
13.5 billion years old... than the universe is expanding at a speed
which is faster than the speed of light (which I am told is an
impossibility).

Who says? The "speed limit" is only for light. There is no known speed
limit for the expansion of space.

The present mainstream interpretation of very high redshift objects is
that those objects are effectively receding at a speed greater than
the speed of light. See:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0011/0011070.pdf

If you don't interpret the data the same, and limit yourself to
special relativity/doppler shift, then you must posit a force that
would cause the far flung galaxies (or us) to actually be moving in
space at very close to light speed. For example, a recently discovered
redshift, z, of 6.4 would correspond to a recession velocity of 96.4%
of the speed of light if the expansion of space is ignored. See:

http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/20030109.quasar.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...redshf.html#c2

And the farther we look back in time, the more galaxies that "pile up"
at such incredulous recession velocities.

The co-moving coordinates of expanding space seems an explanation
easier to swallow for me.

---
Michael McCulloch