Red Shift

You won't see any change in 100 years. That is an instant, cosmologically speaking. I think the current understanding is that the redshift is not due to velocity through space but the expansion of space itself, like the surface of a balloon that is being inflated.

One hundred years against the age of the universe is indeed an instant. But one hundred years duration at the proposed expansion accelerations is not an instant. How much does the velocity change at that rate with a hundred yr duration?.........it is HUGE.

At those expansion rates we should easily see a shift of the far away ones. As a matter of fact, that change will give a third way to measure the expansion rate.

No change in red shift indicates a constant relative velocity.......to that emitter.

Something is out of wack. The shift says change.......but the constant shift says steady change. NOT increasing change. Steady change is constant V. V needs to be changing for acceleration.

I wonder if anyone has compared old shifts to new shifts? I bet they are the same, or someone would have notice before.

When you look through a telescope, you are looking back in time. One way to estimate the distance is to measure the redshift and to use Hubble's constant. Hubble's constant was determined by comparing redshift with independent distance estimation using standard candles. (Standard candles are astronomical objects that have a known luminosity, so that we can determine distance independent of redshift.)

http://www.astro.ex.ac.uk/people/hatchell/rinr/candles.pdf

If the Hubble constant were truly constant (no acceleration) the distance would be linearly proportional to redshift. If the expansion is accelerating, then in the past when the light was emitted, the expansion was less and so the red-shift would be less than expected as shown in the plot below.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Best-fit-curve-for-luminosity-distance-versus-redshift_fig3_314098062

When we observe and measure distance from a curve surface, there is a limit to it and we call that limit the horizon. The horizon can be seen from any location on the curved surface.

But if you flatten that surface, the horizon retreats and disappears. It would appear as a straight line while retreating. That line separates what can be seen and not be seen. That separation makes a line.

Can we detect a horizon out there? If we are in a hyper-sphere, we would have TWO horizons. Both horizons would appear as straight lines. With stars in between them. Seen from anywhere. Like the MW.

But we don't see that. If space is expanding, it's not curved. And no horizon. Hold the shutter open at a dark direction. It will shortly sprinkle and stars will appear. Accumulated weak starlight. With accumulation astronomy no horizon will be found. Probably only light will be found. It's much larger than we imagine.

And with accumulated light we may see much, much farther than thought. Maybe no limit, unless you run out of time.