I re edited this because I did not want to make people think that I was some nut crack who believes the "the speed of light depends upon the distance used to measure it"

I was hoping that was the best way to describe the idea of it - but then I realized that the whole notion of "speed of light" cannot change for any distance really. Distances are defined in terms of the speed of light. but rather I assumed the notion that a distance be defined in terms of the length of some object say some long wooden stick - like a ruler.

I want to clarify that what I am stating is that the comparative distance described in terms of a wooden stick and in terms of the speed of light are not compatible metrics.

The following probably isn't a reflection of any conclusion drawn from experiment, it's purely imaginative and probably - like this whole theory - bogus.

Imagine if we were looking down on a small tiny group of particles, and we knew that they interact with each other in certain ways, and the influence one particle has on another is dependent upon how far it is away.

We observe two particles interact with each other much stronger than they should interact with each other, we might believe (and probably correctly) that we can not say that strength decreases with distance by the believed amount that something else is at play. Or we might explain it as a discrepancy between how we see the event, and how the two particles see each other. So the 'distance' which separate these two particles might be much less from their frame of reference; that some how by looking from our larger-scale perspective to theirs this discrepancy arises.

Imagine as though it were like this following example;

You take a meter stick and you put it end to end so that it extends 10 billion light years, at one end of this long line is observer A and at the other end is observer B. If either observer A were to compare their meter through current methods with a meter by observer B, observer A would conclude that the meter in his vicinity is smaller than observer B's, and vice versa.

The effects are not merely an illusion, if observer A were to measure an impulse the impulse will be spread out as though they were receding, but as time continued on, either object wouldn't appear to be any further away.

While this theory agrees with the notion that redshift is a measure of distance, it doesn't agree that redshift is the result of a recession velocity - Doppler Effect. It is on the basis that it is premature to attribute redshift as a solely as a recession velocity between these distant bodies and the observer.

btw, I thought about posting it on the forum, but I thought that I would be reprimanded for having overly speculative posts. So for now, I'll just keep them on my blog.

Thanks for your reply, I was suspecting an answer of that sort.

I still don't see the difference between saying that "two bodies are receding away from each other", to saying "The space in between the two bodies is expanding" Are they not describing the same thing? And if they are not, how can a person distinguish between the two?

I thought the hubble lenth is the distance in which the redshift effect becomes nonnegligible. (Where the expansion becomes the dominant behavior of the observed body)

Would it matter how it's interpreted? Isn't the effect the same?