Think of it like an inflating balloon(or a balloon that is inflated but is assumed to be expanding further). In the center of that balloon, you will have a point that is coordinately the center. If the balloon expands further, you can expand the grid in that direction, likewise if it shrinks, all the while leaving your origin in a single spatial location.

George, -Let me start by saying welcome back! I hope to see you around more.-As to the thread here, there is a link in my first post regarding the fact that satellite clocks are NOT due to general or special relativity as suggested in the link you provided.-From Physicsforums.com:-Hi everybody-In his paper - "The Confrontation between General Relativity and
Experiment: A 1998 Update" - http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9811036
Clifford M. Will wrote on page 12 that
the Global Positioning System (GPS) provides absolute
accuracies of around 15 m (even better in its military mode)
anywhere on Earth, which corresponds to 50 nanoseconds in
time accuracy at all times. Yet the difference in rate between
satellite and ground clocks as a result of special and general
relativistic effects is a whopping 40 microseconds per day
(60micros. from the gravitational redshift, and -20micros. from
time dilation). If these effects were not accurately accounted
for, GPS would fail to function at its stated accuracy.-This seems to indicate that the GPS clocks are really affected by
motion. However, in their book "Spacetime Physics - Introduction to
Special Relativity" (W. H. Freeman and Company - 1992) Edwin F.
Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler write on page 77:
We conclude that free-float motion does not affect the
structure or operation of clocks.-I'm not sure what to believe now. Does motion affect the operation of
clocks or not? Can anybody enlighten me on this?-Thanks,-Andrew A. Harland-
This is a clear case of the data not supporting the theory.-
As for light bending because of gravitation pull etc:-If it is as you say, then all data on the CMBR is completely invalid and totally useless as any form of empirical evidence because their can be no good evidence as to where the energy originated from. Either we can measure and map it, or we can not. Either physicist are guilty of gross misrepresentation of their data, or the theory outlined above is possible. Either they are able to detect it accurately enough to determine that it is moving away from us at ' 3x the speed of light in every direction' as they claim, or they are misrepresenting their actual findings. It is a simple case of 'You can not have your cake and then say it is impossible to bake said cake or write a recipe.'

Woody Allen has the answer to this one!-Is Brooklyn Expanding?
In Annie Hall, the movie character played by the young Woody Allen explains to his doctor and mother why he can't do his homework. "The universe is expanding. The universe is everything, and if it's expanding, someday it will break apart and that would be the end of everything!" But his mother knows better: "You're here in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is not expanding!"-His mother is right. Brooklyn is not expanding. People often assume that as space expands, everything in it expands as well. But this is not true. Expansion by itself--that is, a coasting expansion neither accelerating nor decelerating--produces no force. Photon wavelengths expand with the universe because, unlike atoms and cities, photons are not coherent objects whose size has been set by a compromise among forces. A changing rate of expansion does add a new force to the mix, but even this new force does not make objects expand or contract.-For example, if gravity got stronger, your spinal cord would compress until the electrons in your vertebrae reached a new equilibrium slightly closer together. You would be a shorter person, but you would not continue to shrink. In the same way, if we lived in a universe dominated by the attractive force of gravity, as most cosmologists thought until a few years ago, the expansion would decelerate, putting a gentle squeeze on bodies in the universe, making them reach a smaller equilibrium size. Having done so, they would not keep shrinking.-In fact, in our universe the expansion is accelerating, and that exerts a gentle outward force on bodies. Consequently, bound objects are slightly larger than they would be in a nonaccelerating universe, because the equilibrium among forces is reached at a slightly larger size. At Earth's surface, the outward acceleration away from the planet's center equals a tiny fraction (10^-30) of the normal inward gravitational acceleration. If this acceleration is constant, it does not make Earth expand; rather the planet simply settles into a static equilibrium size slightly larger than the size it would have attained.-This reasoning changes if acceleration is not constant, as some cosmologists have speculated. If the acceleration itself increased, it could eventually grow strong enough to tear apart all structures, leading to a "big rip." But this rip would occur not because of expansion or acceleration per se but because of an accelerating acceleration. -The above is from:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03&page=5

--
GPJ

If space is expanding, and everything is moving away from everything else at an ever increasing speed as described here(Subheading observational evidence), how can Nebula collide?-The Milky Way and Andromeda are approaching each other and will meet in 2 billion years. Other collisions of galaxies are seen all the time . It has to do with local movement and gravity. The universe is so vast that there are local events and overall uniform events. Great walls of galaxies and great spaces, but still considered uniform. Nebula is the old word for galaxy.

There are new tentative findings that neutrinos may exceed the speed of light, or may not:-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484