>>13633655>No afaik it measures a redshift in spectral lines increasing at distance. Expansion is a conclusion that may well be correctFair point, the expansion of the universe can still be debated. Do note, however, that we didn't conclude the expansion for measurements of the redshift - rather, the BBT and inflationary theory predicted a redshift, and when we could measure it, it was considered a strong confirmation
>No, even the next galaxy shows different "rotational" shifts on different distances to centerI'm not sure what rotation (due to gravitation) has to do with what we are discussing
>But if there is constant expansion in all 3 dimensions why are the "oldest" or farest galaxies not the biggest one in sky?See
>>13633833 basically the gravity of structures pulls themselves together as space tries to rip them apart
There's a end-of-the-universe theoretical scenario called the Big Rip where the expansion of the universe accelerates so much that eventually overcomes all forces holding matter together, first making galaxzies larger and eventually unbound as per your thinking, then destroying ever smaller structures, down to the subatomic level
Another possibility is that gravity slows down the expansion of space, like it slows down the flow of time. What's certain (and by certain I mean, I might be actually talking out of my ass) is that less time has passed near galaxies than in the intergalactic voids, and even less than in the supervoids between filaments, so I think even the expansion of the universe was slower near those masses
>If the "light" is affected longitudinal, it mus be grow transversal too and there must be a an additional "light" intensity decrease at the growing rate. 
