They don't exceed the speed of light and it's not "speed" that we are talking about anyway. Speed refers to movement, which is change of position in space over time. When defining speed that way, then the speed of light is always the same.
Yet, we ARE talking about speed. That is the parameter of the OP.
The speed of light is always the same in relation to WHAT? Local objects? Ok, then. By that, then, would you say that the distance between objects within any galaxy relative to the nature of that galaxy, do not separate —that is, from the perspective of any particular galaxy, does the galaxy also expand? And do the objects in that galaxy also get bigger? If not, does the galaxy itself expand in relation to other galaxies? What seem to me to be obvious implications get scattered all over the place.
The way I understand this is that space time expands rather than just objects (galaxies) moving within space. It expanded very quickly early on, then slowed down and now is accelerating again. In this framework, talking about speed is confusing, because space-time obviously cannot move in space over time; it is the actual space-time that expands. It's best to always use quote marks (galaxies "move" away from us because the space in between expands, but they are near stationary in space)
Just a side question, then, if I may. If space-time itself expands, how can anyone know how long it took to do so —to go from time-zero to present day? We can only say, "It appears to us
here, according to red-shift (or whatever), that it took 14 billion years."
Also, from what poor understanding I garner from what I have been told, I see no reason to conclude that any other local space-time began simultaneously with ours. In fact, the word 'simultaneous' loses all meaning there. It might be intuitive to assume there was only one Big-Bang, but I don't see, if so, how one can say any one galaxy retreating faster than the speed of light relative to our own, has within its own internal(?) principle of space-time the inability for anything to go faster than the speed of light.
Because of that, the "perceived speed" at which galaxies "move" in relation to us depends on how far away they are. Very far away galaxies "move" so fast that their light will never reach us. Moreover, the galaxies we see today are going to go past the limit of visibility and we will never see them again.
I don't have any problem understanding this. To me it is simple math, not at all counter-intuitive, without any need to reference any particular galaxy's internal(?) space-time. But in conversations before this one, I am told simply "It is impossible to go faster than the speed of light, period.", and I say, the speed of light, then, must be relative to something; if that statement (that it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light) is true, then they have to mean relative to some local space-time (or something). I don't get it, obviously. To me, it is like saying, in an argument concerning whether breathing is consciously or automatically controlled, "But you are breathing AIR!".
