Did the expansion rate of the universe exceed lightspeed?

Can we be certain that the speed of light has been 'constant' since the beginning of time?Could it be that the rate of expansion of the universe is the limiting speed in the universe and that the speed of light and the rate of expansion of the universe are intrinsically related or even one and the same thing?This would mean that to all intents and purposes the speed of light is contant from our limited point of view but not in cosmological terms. During the period of expansion the speed of light would have been much greater than it is now for exampleBefore anyone jumps down my throat - I am not proposing this as true or even supported. I am thinking about why a certain limiting speed should exist in the universe and am interested as to any possible correlation between that limiting speed and the properties of the universe as we know them.Is there evidence either for or against the idea above and if so what is that evidence?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Now I am confused (and I suspect I am not alone)I thought the limit of the speed of light was related to the increase of an objects mass as it approaches the speed of light and that at the speed of light the mass would be infinite thus requiring infinite force to accelerate it furtherIn the case of physical matter at least there is a limit. Is this wrong?

Well explained. Even to the point were I think I actually get it now. So thankyou for that.In terms of the OP - What reference frame do we use to determine the rate of expansion of the universe?
Where is the conceptual clock and what does that show as the universe expands? How does the frame of reference maintain relativity intact during periods of expansion at rates that appear to be faster than the speed of light in other frames of reference. Which frames of reference are these that do suggest expansion rates greater than the speed of light?Is the rate of expansion of the universe (esp the idea of it exceeding the speed of light) even a meaningful concept if the frame of reference is taken into account?I am well baffled by the expanding universe now.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Another good explanationWhat does the equator on this imaginary sphere represent in terms of the lifecycle of the universe?Is rate of expansion a misleading phrase? It seems more like a rate of divergence/convergence?

Cheers for your very clear and patient explanation. I think I amstrting to get it.Now I will try and tackle Cavediver's last post!!

I think I get the 4d velocity vector and the limit implied by the length of this. I also think I get the difference between a massles particle and a body with rest mass with this way of thinking of things.The part that I don't get and would appreciate some further explanation of is - The idea of moving in time at the speed of light is in itself quite bizzarre....So what does this tell us about the rate of the expansion of the universe? Or is the point that I was originally missing the very fact that this has nothing to do with the rate of the epansion of the universe and that the two have absolutely no bearing on each other?

Well that wraps things up strictly in terms of the OP I guess!!If you do get a chance to explain further on the stationary observer's view I for on would be interested to hear this.Anyway - Thanks for your time so far. Interesting stuff.