Excellent. I am one who wants to know the current consensus. My view of the current consensus is that it is BBT with inflation and the cosmological principle. BBT with Inflation, in my view is General Relativity that has evolved to include Hubble and Guth, and others of course. The cosmological principle ala Thomas Gold who was of the opinion that the Cosmological Principle applies to both space and time. His view was that not only should the universe be homogeneous and isotropic from any point in space, but that should hold true at any point in time. To me that is still the consensus but I am always open to learning. It will be interesting to discuss that with you but I take it that AN is referring to the geometry of spacetime. That is what I understand AN to be saying when we say spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light. A bit of a misnomer but the point is that mass, let us say galaxies and not refer to “local spacetime” are detected to be moving away from each other (except in local groups) at an accelerating rate, and that separation from the perspective of General Relativity is that space is being added and as a result the galaxies are getting further apart. This is how I believe AN is referring to it but I posed the post to him to get his response to find that out. Good, the “carried away” was from AN and I was posting the post to him so I used his terminology. Back to “local spacetime”. I am staying at the galactic scale when galaxies are observed to be moving away from each other, and in GR that motion is the result of the added space, I am trying to pin down the effect of galactic scale motion cause by added space on the EM that is already in the space between galaxies. By stating it, “I assume that is because the light that they have emitted is not carried with it as spacetime expands?”, I hoped to get AN’s response to the impact of added space on the EM already in motion through the space between galaxies as new space is added by the expansion of spacetime. Do you see why I posed the question? It was in response to AN's post and was designed to get AN’s response. I understand that to be what AN is saying and your answer is probably that same as what his would or will be. You confirm what I think is AN’s position. I understand that. OK, thanks. Come on back later. I participate in threads like they are conversations but they often take several posts to converse. My post to AN was a part of what might be several posts. If he responds to my post to him, presumably his response will be similar to yours, and we will be at the point where I will have confirmed my understanding of what he is saying. From there I will present my next post in the conversation to which I would be hopeful of a reply and a confirmation from him that he understands what I am posting (not agreement, but understanding). After several posts back and forth I will understand more about where he is coming from and I will have had the opportunity to confirm my understanding and to ask him to confirm his understand of my posts. It may never reach that point but that would be the reason for the conversation.