Not a dumb question. There are lots of different levels of explanation for this. But at the deepest level, the answer is "because the universe has a beginning".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

But there's still light from stars we can't see (with our eyes, at least) reaching us, so the fact that the universe has a beginning doesn't explain why there are so few that are visible. And that really just comes down to distance. Stuff is really far apart, and light gets dimmer the further away you are. The distance the earth orbits around the sun is too small to make a difference in what stars we see, but we do see different stars at different times of year because we can only see them at night, so the direction of stars we see is "away from the sun", which changes as we orbit. There are also stars you can only see in the Northern Hemisphere and vice versa.

Sorry, but this is dumb as fuck. You might have a point if there wasn't a telescope named after him, but there is. That's not just "the default". That's a very specific honor above and beyond "the default". So if you just act homophobic because it's the default if you're part of government in the 50s, you should not get honored above the default.

The argument for not honoring him is so much stronger than the one for it that it shouldn't even be a debate.

Do you think we're at the center of the universe? Because rejecting that idea is an important part of modern cosmology.

If the universe as a whole is not expanding, why does it look like everything is moving away from us, specifically, as if we are at the center? Also, what edge? We don't think there is an edge of the universe, so what makes you think there is?

We cannot observe things that are expanding away from us faster than the speed of light.

We can only observe the past of objects that are currently expanding away from us faster than light, because the evidence of that past was emitted before the object was expanding away faster than light.

That is the light that is highly red-shifted.

Well, they're different because they are entirely different things. The fact that the rate increases for specific objects moving away from us is a consequence of the fact that the rate of expansion increases with distance. That's just not the same as the rate of expansion, 73ish km/s/mpc, increasing over time.

>The rate at which objects at opposite edges of the visible universe move apart is increasing, yes?

This is a weird way to think about the expansion. It's only true because the size of the observable universe is also increasing, since it's limited by the age of the universe, not distance. If instead of "at opposite edges of the visible universe" you just say "at the same specified distance apart", then that does not increase.

The majority of the observable universe is expanding away from us faster than C. The distance at which the expansion is faster than C is only around 14.5 billion lightyears, and the radius of the observable universe is ~46billion.

The rate of expansion is not increasing. It increases with distance, so individual objects have an increasing rate of expansion over time but "the rate of expansion of the universe" is not increasing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHL0137-LS

28 billion lightyears.

And yes, we can see individual stars in andromeda with big telescopes. Every one of the smaller dots here is a star in andromeda: https://esahubble.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/