ok well basically even if the big distances involved are 95 billion instead of 150 , if the 2 furthest away from "each other" bits of the discernible universe are 95 billion light years apart . then assuming everything else was constant - speed of light - gravity - laws of physics as we know them , then that to my mind questions the original assumptions made by einstien and all the rest of them because that suggests matter moving at least close to twice the speed of light .
now i dont claim to be an physicist or much of a maths wiz , but im questioning why we blindly accept something , just because someone else says it .
my untrained thought is , if you have to change a parameter to make a theory continue to fit , then maybe you need to rethink the theory , my main reason for questioning the speed of light thingy , is that people say you cant go faster than it . my gut feeling is that if the universe has been around less than the 40 odd billion years for the universe to spread out 40 odd billion light years in distance then i still think however you measure the speed of travel , it would have had to have travelled faster than we currently measure light travelling at . and if dumb unorganised matter can do it , im pretty sure we could engineer it to happen eventually.