mergatroid

You may've misunderstood. The claim was made that the 13.8 billion lightyear limit to our view of the universe around us was due to objects receding away from us at more than the speed of light. If that claim is true (I'm not saying it is), it would follow that some galaxies are moving at exactly the speed of light relative to us. In the case of such galaxies, which are spinning, part of the galaxy would be moving away from us (i.e. red shifted), and part of it would be moving toward us (blue shifted). But, because the relative speed is the speed of light, half of the galaxy's light would be too slow to ever reach us and we'd see only half of that galaxy. The part that would visible is the blue shifted half. Seems pretty obvious.

That's a nonsequitur. You're justifying apples by talking about oranges. They aren't causally related.

As a matter of fact a univeristy astronomer said that to me. Maybe he was trying to simplify it for a non-astronomer. Then he provided a highly technical PDF to me to "justify" this. One could say he was acting like an elitist. At any rate, perhaps you could elucidate the issue and enumerate the currently known sources of wavelength shift?

I still don't understand why astronomers insist that the wavelength shift has to have just one cause. That seems overly simplistic and leads to absurd-sounding ideas like the Big Bang, which is pseudo-religious, and stars necessarily moving away at light speed. Sure, there is a Doppler effect for light. But to say that is the only cause of wavelength shift is just silly and unfounded. There is a rule of thumb that the more absurd an explanation is, the more is needs to be revised.

That isn't a proveable hypothesis however. It's observation leading to conjecture. It's illogical though. If it were true, then you would expect to see a few half-galaxies i.e. ones that are traveling at exactly the speed of light, where the part moving toward us is visible, and the part moving away is not. I understand that tired light theory isn't popular but there may be some additional factor that causes light to shift besides motion. Photons after all carry energy. If they interact with something in space that causes a general loss of energy that would also explain some of the red shift.

I see no reason to believe that figure because I don't believe it's real science. It also makes no logical sense. It assumes we're at the center of the universe, which is a theological argument, i.e. humans putting themselves at the center of everything because some god put them there. If the universe has a finite size (it doesn't) and there is no reason at all to think we're at the center of it, then we are closer to the edge of it. In that case, we'd see more galaxies in one direction than on the opposite. But we don't.

OK, so we're not in the exact center of the universe then. That's good. However why would our ability to view distant stars break off at 13.8 billion light years? That would suggest that photons have a lifespan and they just extinguish if they travel too far. But if they do that, then red shift would also be in doubt because a photon would die presumbly due to loss of energy, and red shift is also a loss of energy. If red shift isn't reliable, then we don't really know how far away celestial objects are.

The horizon exists because the Earth is curved. Are you saying the universe is curved? Ah, so you are making a theological argument that the Earth is at the center of the entire universe. Got it.

That sounds like a thelogical argument. There's no reason to believe that it is onlyh 13.8 billion years old, other than faith in such a notion.

In a recent Youtube video, a working astronomer named Dr Becky claimed that we can see for 13.8 lightyears in all directions. Is that a factual statement? In order words it's not 5 lightyears in one direction, 18 lightyears in another etc. If so, what is the reason for this strange phenomenon?