The one way speed of light is instantaneous

I still disagree with you. Romer did not prove that in his experiments. Here is my reason why. "The first experimental determination of the speed of light was made by Ole Christensen Romer. It may seem that this experiment measures the time for light to traverse part of the Earth's orbit and thus determines its one-way speed, however, this experiment was carefully re-analysed by Zhang, who showed that the measurement does not measure the speed independently of a clock synchronization scheme but actually used the Jupiter system as a slowly-transported clock to measure the light transit times.[31] The Australian physicist Karlov also showed that Romer actually measured the speed of light by implicitly making the assumption of the equality of the speeds of light back and forth. " https://en.wikipedia.org... Also, I do not see how the "Hubble Sphere" disproves my point. How do you know that you can't see all the stars? What if we do see every star in the universe? Even if we don't, doesn't that just mean that there isn't enough light emitting from the stars? What about things that prevent the light from arriving here? There are many questions to the Hubble Sphere still. It in no way disproves my claim. Also, I speculate that the Hubble Sphere doesn't exist like you say. The universe's expansion is assumed from redshift in the light. Scientists think that the Doppler Effect is what leads to/causes redshift, and therefore shows that the universe is expanding. (I suggest reading on what the Doppler Effect and Redshift is). https://en.wikipedia.org... But what if the redshift in the light wasn't from the Doppler Effect, but from light being affected by the universe around it? This is called the Tired Light Model. Even Edwin Hubble, who discovered redshift, believed that it was possible that redshift was due to distance, and not the universe expanding. ". . . the possibility that red-shift may be due to some other cause, connected with the long time or distance involved in the passage of the light from the nebula to observer, should not be prematurely neglected." (Hubble and Tolman 1935, p. 303) Now, you cannot say that absolutely that the Hubble Sphere disproves my position. The Hubble Sphere isn't even guaranteed to be true. It depends on an interpretation of redshift of light, which I would say is due to light decay. Therefore, the Hubble Sphere does not disprove my position. Here is an illustration of why I think that the speed of light is instantaneous. Lets say, hypothetically, that *The Hubble Sphere exists in the way people say it does, and *The speed of light is NOT instantaneous one way, but is constant. That would mean that there are things inside our universe that are technically outside our universe! That is because the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. "Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years). If those numbers are a little too much to contemplate, rest assured that's really, really fast" http://www.space.com... Nothing (besides space, because of Special Relativity), can go faster than the speed of light (think of it like the speed limit). So it"s impossible to interact with those things that the universe separates us from past a certain point. The point of separation comes from the universe expanding at speeds faster than the speed of light. The speed of light, being a universal constant and from other factors, is the fastest something can travel. Because things cannot travel faster than the speed of light, then those same things cannot travel as fast as the universe. Therefore, nothing can move as fast as the expansion of the universe. Therefore, the universe can keep things completely separated because they can never travel fast enough to ever meet. That means that there are things in our expanding universe that we can never be in relation with within time and space. Then how can those things be defined as being within the same universe then? It seems strange that things within our universe would be considered not in our same universe. How can something be defined as in our universe, but be unapproachable, and basically nonexistent to us? It might as well not exist, because nothing in physics can bring us to those objects in any way. No observation, direct or indirect, using any known action that physics allows, could make those objects known. In your position, something can be within our universe, but never be known and be outside our reaches of the universe (because of the speed of the expansion of the universe)! This is some kind of hybrid-multiverse kind of idea, which I disagree with. I do not agree with this interpretation of the universe . So therefore, I do not agree with your interpretation of the universe, as that is the ultimate conclusion if you hypothetically correct. But what if the speed of light was instant? Whether or not the universe is expanding at the rate that redshift predicts, all things would be within light"s limits of reaching. Then, all things in the universe are within reach. That would make a single, unified universe (whether or not the universe is expanding at the suspected speeds). This interpretation of the universe is more appealing. So, the idea of a Hubble Sphere is questionable. Also, the idea leads to that the universe is expanding faster than light, which creates strange ideas of our universe. I believe my position makes more sense, and is scientifically plausible at the same time. While your position, while also being possible, doesn't appear as well as mine.