If anyone is going to be honest, they cannot say they know the distance of the universe, if it does have an end. All the calculations made about the distance of the universe relies heavily on the speed of light being a constant. (without a constant, how can you measure anything)
I saw this thread after I posted in the speed of light thread, and you can see for yourself:
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 1999, experiments were done at Harvard, Smithsonian, and Cambridge to slow light down using a specially treated cesium gas. The first
experiments yeilded light to 38 MPH. Two years later, they stopped light, and then released it again like a material particle. It was also able to be
speeded up to 300 times faster than normal.(See David Whitehouse, science editor, Beam Smashes Light Barrier, BBC News, July 19, 2000; See also William J. Cromie, Physicists Slow Speed of Light, Harvard University Gazette, Feb 18, 1999; See also Malcolm W. Browne, Researchers Slow Speed of Light to the Pace of a Sunday Driver, New York Times, Feb 18, 1999)
Since the constant speed of light has been disproven, that means all measurements based on light speed distance cannot be determined to be accurate without claiming absolute knowledge of the universe. Red Shift, for example,
ASSUMES the speed of light is a constant, it
ASSUMES light has always traveled at the same rate, and it
ASSUMES that the light has not traveled through anything that may change its speed and/or appearance.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Without a constant speed of light, there is no way for us to determine, with any confident accuracy, the distance to stars or the universe itself. They very well could be billions of light years away, and it's a reasonable theory, but we don't know, and it's arrogant and unlawful for people to tell students the evolutionary guesses of distance outside our solar system is "fact."
(For more details, see "
The Big Dud Theory," at "
creationliberty.org)