>>>>That's exactly what I'm trying to get at. Assuming the article is correct, then there is not general expansion. There is expansion in only one direction. That would mean that we and the rest of the universe are all heading to the same place. In that case, the furthest galaxies in that direction are moving faster than we are, but we are moving faster than those in the other direction. That's the only way I can think of that would make it appear that the universe is expanding in all directions.
>>>
>>>Well, the article may be a little confusing in this respect. The expansion of the Universe is well established. Any "movement in one direction", as noted in the article would be a small movement, superimposed on the general trend of expansion. So, if the article gives the impression that the Universe is NOT expanding, that part is not correct - or it is confusingly stated.
>>
>>When you blow up a balloon (especially one of those tube type balloons), it expands, but from the vantage point of the blower, it is expanding in one direction - ie - away from the blower. But from the vantage point of any spot on the balloon itself, it appears to be expanding in all directions.
>>
>>Perhaps the universe is expanding in only one direction, but from our vantage point, it appears to be expanding in all directions.
>
>Perhaps, but there seems to be a general consensus that "space itself" is expanding - and the galaxies with it.
>
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space: "The metric expansion of space is the averaged increase of metric (i.e. measured) distance between objects in the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion—that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space."

Ok, then there is nothing really in that definition that prohibits movement in one general direction.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that all objects in the Universe are moving more or less in the same general direction. Suppose also that the objects closest to the 'goal' are moving fastest and those furthest from it moving slowest. That would mean that the distance (or relative separation) between us and those objects closest to the 'goal' would be expanding, and the distance between us and those objects furthest from the 'goal' would also be expanding - assuming, of course, that we are neither the closest nor the furthest object from that 'goal'.

>
>Whatever that means. One thing it does seem to mean is that far-away places in the Universe are receding from us faster than the speed of light (and that the limit of the visible Universe is only 13 billion years old, but 2-3 times that distance away, in light-years); although "locally", the speed of light is the upper speed limit. That is, the fabric of space itself is getting bigger, but objects can not move "within space" faster than the speed of light.

I'm not sure why it necessarily means they are moving faster than the [local] speed of light. It assumes, does it not, that the universe is, in fact, infinite, and not finite but expanding?