This is a thought of mine... or popping my 2 cents into the pot. I think it is fine to have the speed of light as constant. It does seem to me that we are missing one important facet when I consider it. It has to do with position. Where things are... ... relative to us. I would suggest the following important distinction: > where we observe objects to be is where they would be now (if they still exist) > not where they were in relative terms to us when the light 1st began its journey... This seems to be counterintuitive doesn't it? Effectively what I am saying is that by my view we essentially see the stars about where they would be now; and not where they were relative to us when each light particle first began its journey. I only mention this for two reasons: 1. it doesn't seem to have been mentioned. 2. because it seems to me that in general that nothing about the current relative position seems to be implicitly stated but it could be an underlying assumption that may be creating bias in understanding. ie. We are assuming we are seeing things where they were; whereas I am saying that we see their position as being about where they would be now.