Quite the opposite. In a relativistic framework (our inertial frame for instance), we see distant galaxies which are very young, and since they move so fast, time dilation is significant. Those galaxies are still far younger than ours even now. Under this framework, nothing moves faster than light.Greta wrote:Then again, when we view those galaxies travelling away from us at that speed, we are probably viewing light from long dead galaxies, in which case we are actually looking into the past
Only in the frame of distant galaxy X is the galaxy now long dead, since we're the young one with the dilated time.
Under the comoving framework, that distant galaxy is about the same age now as our own (as are all galaxies since they're all reasonably stationary). In that framework, distant galaxies might be increasing their separation from us at a rate of 20 C, but in comoving framework, there is no maximum to that speed. There is still a speed of light, meaning light from those sufficiently distant places cannot ever reach us.
The difference between the velocity of galaxy X in one framework or the other has to do with a different definition of where that galaxy is now, which is an arbitrary selection. In one second of earth time, how much time passes for galaxy X? You get very different answers, and thus very different velocities, depending ones choice of the foliation of space (folation means how one chooses to order events in spacetime).