Think of the universe not as objects flying apart, but as the fabric of space itself stretching. The more distance there is between two objects, the more 'new space' is generated every second, across that entire distance.

Light travels 9.461 × 10^15^ meters per year. At a certain distance (the Hubble limit), more than 9.461 × 10^15^ meters of new space is created in a year. So for stars beyond the Hubble limit, the light sent from those stars actually ends up further from us after a year than when it started. That's what "moving away from us faster than light" means.

An analogy I recall is being on the surface of an expanding balloon.

There may be a speed limit on surface travel, but a point far away may recede faster than the travel speed limit due to expansion.

nothing can ever move faster than light speed

..pr space-time 'unit' ? If max speed is defined inside spacetime, then what if space it self expands everywhere ? So the speed is a limitation of the rules governing a 'medium', but the medium it self might not have such limitations.

[contrived analogy] If you start to swim in a large and 20m tall swimming pool, you have a max speed. Imagine everything in the pool have that max speed. Now imagine that the poolwalls suddenly disappears and the water column drops. At the ground, water would make a pan-cake shape, where water moves faster on the edge than in the center. Objects would flow with the water, and still have the same max speed as before. Objects at the edges now moves at the water expansion speed + max speed. Objects relative to other objects in the pool can move away 'globally' from each other at many times the max swimming speed, while maintaining the 'local' max speed in the water.

This is horrible cosmology/physics on many levels, and I probably made someone go to, or roll over in their grave, but it was the only 'medium expanding' analogy I could come up with on the spot. Apologies for the inflicted cognitive dissonance..

Adding to other answers to your question, once you've grasped how it is, here is another mindfuck for you.

Eventually the space between stars will be too big for emerging intelligent species in the far future on other planets to ever even know a starry sky. There will simply put not be any meaningful light from other stars to reach them. Their entire universe will be their star system and then nothing.

That is not what the theory of special relativity says. It says that nothing with mass can accelerate to the speed of light. This may sound pedantic, but it is quite a different statement.

Aso, the expansion of spacetime isn't much more than a "best guess" as to why we see the redshift of distant galaxies, but the truth of the matter is that we don't really understand much yet about this universe. Not really.

Speed is distance/time. But time is relative, how time progresses is not some universal constant. And it gets WAY weirder than that. Here are some links, one of Richard Freymann explaining light much better than I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWCl7diBGos

And another about the mystery of information and time.

https://theconversation.com/is-time-a-fundamental-part-of-reality-a-quiet-revolution-in-physics-suggests-not-273841

https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/an-infinity-of-worlds

might be what you're looking-for..

VoterFrog, here, & Sims, give much better views than most articles on it, tbh, & that book also helps.

& if you want to get into Time..

Carlo Rovelli has some yt vids, including a lecture ( for us humans, not for the physicists ) on Royal Institution's channel, & his book "The Order of Time" might be of interest to you..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6rWqJhDv7M

His point that you can't measure time, but you can measure change.. seems valid.

& if "space" is actually a kind of process..

good luck, eh?

_ /\ _

Objects beyond our cosmic event horizon are in a similar state to objects inside a black hole’s event horizon: we can describe them in hypothetical terms, but they’re effectively outside of our universe. There’s no longer any causal connection between us and them in either direction, and our relativistic frame of reference doesn’t extend to them.

Make sure your answer comes from a cosmologist, not a cosmetologist! They sound similar, but I had to retake AST1430H Cosmology, because I consulted the wrong sources.

Don't get me started on my mathematologist friend.

i thought it was because the expansion doesnt actually make things move... all the space between all the things is getting bigger at the same time, making it look like things are moving... in aggregate that can look like more than speed of light

One object is moving speed of light in one direction. Other object is moving speed of light in opposite direction. They are moving 2 speed of light away from each other.