> It isn't wrong, its just not perfectly unambiguous. Yes, it's perfectly wrong, because those objects are not 13Gly away from us. A light-year really is defin

> It isn't wrong, its just not perfectly unambiguous. Yes, it's perfectly wrong, because those objects are not 13Gly away from us. A light-year really is defined as 300,000 km multiplied by whatever number of seconds there are in a year. The object is not at 13e9 x 300,000 x <a lot of seconds> kilometers from us if it took 13 billion years for the light to reach us. > It isn't a surprise to anyone to point out that the source of something that was moving away from us 13Gy ago is now further away than it was. If I wanted to give words the least charitable interpretation, I could point out that their motion has nothing to do with this -- they would still be farther than 13 Gly away from us even if they would not be moving away relative to the Earth :-).