As we look into the distance, deep into the past, towards the big bang, it is mind boggling how unintuitive it seems. If you look far enough into the distance, you should be able to see the earliest moments after the big bang. This would be the cosmic background radiation, as quarks condensed into protons and neutrons.
What is more confusing to me is the interpretation of the evidence that suggests the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. This conclusion is based on observing red shifts. The farther an object is from us, the faster it appears to be moving away. Unless I’m misunderstanding something, doesn’t this tell us that the expansion of the universe is actually slowing down?
If distance is proportional to time, then wouldn’t an accelerating expansion demonstrate higher differences in velocity (red shift) for objects nearer to us. Since they are near, we see them as they were relatively recently as compared to far away objects. If the rate of expansion is accelerating, then observations of more recent events should show higher velocities than observations of events in the more distant past. On the other hand, if the velocity of distant objects is higher than the velocity of nearer objects, then shouldn’t it be logical to conclude that expansion is slowing rather than quickening?