<blockquote class="blockquote"><div class="italic"><i>Judson Mitchell said:</i><br><br>HOw do they adapt the image for time differentials. It should be only what is being received at the moment and could not possibly be an accurate picture as what actually is. All I have read seems to treat the distribution as an absolute. Help me understand a little better.<br><br>Jud</div></blockquote>Jud, I think your points are well made. For the last 50 yrs since I got hooked on cosmology, I've wonder what an actual snapshot of the Universe would like like now, not as it was aeon's ago. The latest I've read is that the universe beyond our observable horizon is vast, perhaps 100 billion L.Y.'s or more. I believe the heart of the problem is the complete and total lack of understanding gravity, yes the G word, a word that physicists are loath to even mention. Einstein's explanation of gravity as curved time/space is like saying birds fly because they have feathers, without any understanding of the medium in which they fly. This business of black holes (gravity wells) dark matter, dark energy,et al, are nothing more than euphemisms for gravity. Of course, the professionals can never admit they have been cashing their paychecks all these many decades, and all they have to show for it are no real answers, only more ad-hoc assumptions, one piled upon another. All the basic things we were taught about the scientific method in H.S. seems to go by the wayside as soon as a paycheck is involved. The real problems with the professionals in the business is that they have a very vested interest in playing CYA<br>MB