There is a discussion on this topic here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_the_cosmos_is_1_finite-content_or_2_infinite-content_Is_there_finite_or_infinite_creation

In a curved spacetime relative velocity can’t be defined unambiguously. Another way of saying this is that Lorentz transformations can only be defined locally, not globally-they depend on the observer.

Great info guys! Thanks!

Also let us entertain the idea that there was no single singularity in the BB but empty space preexisted and BB happened everywhere all at once!

Similar to the crystallization process of a bulk of water to ice?

Regardless of the curvature of space or the rate of expansion of any part of the Universe, the speed of light relative to its immediate surroundings can never exceed c. That's why we talk about the Observable Universe, meaning that part of the Universe that is close enough to us that it's rate of expansion away from us is less than c, so that light from that region can move toward us a rate equal to the difference between c and the rate of expansion away from us at its present position, and the entire Universe, which includes regions so far away that their rate of expansion away from us exceeds c, meaning that their expansion is actually carrying the light away from us, despite its effort to head in our direction.

Dear Courtney Seligman ,

Nice argument you essentially describing the cosmological horizon problem and how it is explained by the cosmological inflation theory. However, IMHO this is still debatable and an alternative theory of variable-speed-of-light from c in the early universe exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem#Variable-speed-of-light_theories

and supported by my research also that the speed of light in the vacuum depends exclusively by the vacuum energy density which should have been much larger in the early universe than the today density value therefore superluminal speed compared to its current value today c.

In my opinion the recent "unexpected" data from the Webb space telescope of these "should not exist" six massive galaxies discovered actually confirm the CMB data about the homogeneity of our observable universe and possible the speed of causality was much larger in the early universe and galaxies have formed much faster then and this can explained with a variable speed of light in the early universe much larger than today.

Another novel way to explain the homogeneity of the CMB and synchronous causality observed is if we entertain for a moment the idea that free space preexisted and BB was not happened from a single singularity but more or less simultaneously everywhere and at once all over a preexisting space. Thus not just a single BB singularity but many BB singularities that created matter and light in our universe. Similar to the crystallization process or phase transition of a bulk of water (vacuum space) to ice (matter and light).

But this is another discussion... :)

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

The creation myth is wrong. Cyclic universe may be better.

The redshift of galaxy light is NOT caused by the Doppler effect.

Dear John Hodge ,

The funny thing as far as I know there is no way to experimentally test if the cosmological red shift observed is due to the expansion or intrinsic to the galaxy. If anyone knows how to do this or extract from the data please share this information here.

Emmanouil

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Your are correct, it is model dependent. The Doppler model of galaxy redshift (z) has a very poor correlation (beyond 10 Mpc) with Cepheid distance calculations. (Less than 10 Mpc is within our local cluster and Cepheid and TRGB distance measurement correlate well.) The only way a better correlation (0.80 in the Key Project) was to include several galaxies within our local cluster (< 10 Mpc). But beyond 10 Mpc, the plot of distance vs. z looks like a random scatter plot. Other models such as Arp's and mine produce better correlations and suggest the redshift is NOT Doppler. So, the data suggests a better model than Doppler redshift is required and thus no expansion. This is also in line with the present question and anomaly.

You should forget the standard model. But unless the so called "universe breaking" massive galaxies are observed xxx million years after a (possible) BB there is no crisis at all. Only when they will be observed somewhere before BB then there is anything wrong.

Gravitational Coalescence Paradox (GCP)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP