Yes, but why not?

Formula who is shown here is just a classic view of Hubble's law, apply for nearby galaxies.

On the other way, in case of faraway galaxies, we must use relativistic case of Hubble's law, where redshift velocity became more than velocity of light. Special relativity allows that result, because velocity of metric expansion of the Universe is not in any relation with another physical object!

Conclusion is that this example don't violete principles of theory of relativety.

Mister Krishna,

First of all, red shift is caused by velocity of the galaxy, it is not gravitational red shift, but rather simple Doppler effect you are probably familiar with.

Second, general formula which gives relation between frequency of emitted and received light is a little bit more complicated, but it's limes when v/c ---> 0 is v=c*z. When you want to take into account relativistic effects formula will become more complicated. (Still not very comlicated).

There is not even need to discuss velocity larger then velocity of light because there is not one! Quasars can, for example move with velocity equal to 30% velocity of light, that kind of velocity would give us red shift about 2.2. And so on, and so on.

This was a rather simple question you asked, so I am sure you can find more info in some basic books on physics and astrophysics, its usually much better then to use internet.

Thank you for your comments. I got the clarification.

I feel that many a time in books we make too simplstic approach that will lead us to the confusion. Thanks for answering.

Krishna

@ Mister Graham: I would like to see that "disproof." Even though I think its logically wrong to say that redshift is a proof for big bang. One of the proofs is recession of galaxies we conclude from the redshift.

Thanks for links and papers in advance.

Ivan

No because v=cz does not hold at velocities near c. It is a low velocity approximation.