Hi again, Mike,

>Hmmmmmm.
>
>Wouldn't a moon based telescope be much worse than a satellite based telescope?
>

That's a broad question and depends on the size of the space telescope. If you're talking something like the TPF, then you're right. I mean, jeez, if you want to build an interferometer 100 million km wide out beyond Jupiter it will surely outdo anything we can do on Farside.

>
>>>I'm all for research into big bang alternatives.
>>
>>Ummm....like what?
>
>
>Well, we can agree that light from cosmological distances takes longer to get here for some reason.

Ummm...no we can't agree. The speed of light is a constant. It's "c" man, "c"! LOL

>Redshift is a loss in frequency, f = 1 / t, and the expansion of space means more space for light to travel through, which means it takes longer to get there.
>
>It's mathematically consistent with the observation of Hubble redshift.

But it's mathematically inconsistent with a lot of other observable activity.

>That is based on the assumption that the EM force has an infinite range and light never slows down even over cosmological distances.
>

True.

>But, what if, instead of having more space for the light to travel through, the light simply slows down.
>
>That means it would take longer.

Yes it would but - hey your college years are closer than mine - the implictions for a whole lot of physics would be incredible and otherwise measurable.

>Give then velocity of a wave, v = fw, it makes sense that if the EM force actually had a finite range, it would slow down and one result would be the loss in frequency we observe in deep space.
>>So what's the alternate theory, Mike? I'm all ears.
>
>The alternate theory is that the Universe itself is infinitely larger than observable space.

I have a hard time with that. Starting to sound like the Big Rip theory.