With cosmology,Yes and no.
In better weather I can look out of my window and see a fairly typical star how it was 8 minutes ago.
I don't think the 8 minutes matters much.
But, if it does, I can do rather better. I can do fusion (and other) experiments in a lab so I get results that are pretty much instant.
The expansing adds what could be modeled as a second time vector,As we have grown tired of telling you, Time is not a vector.
(and "expansing " isn't even a word).
Objects that existed close to the start of BB, no longer exist,Essentially every hydrogen atom in your body- and that's most of the atoms- formed close to the BB.
Why do you post obvious nonsense?
A very distant planet, say 5 billion light years away, that was viewing the earth, would assume the earth, today, was an infant planet due to the time delay. It could not infer our last 5 billion years and what the present looked like on the earth. Looking for intelligent life on distant planets, outside our solar system, runs into the time delay problems. We see the past and but its present.An aspect which has been covered in a few sci fi stories. It's hardly a secret.
What we see today, is the most distant objects, appearing to move the fastest. However, since there is a time delay, the behavior of these most distant objects, are not from the present, but are a snapshot from their most distant past. The most distant past had the fastest objects. As we decrease the observational time delay, by looking at things that are closer and closer, the objects get slower; less red shift. This is consistent with an explosion of sorts. Upon detonation the matter expands quickly like a firework in the sky, then the debris slows with time. Based on signal time delay this is observed.If that was the reason for the Hubble constant then there would be two issues- firstly, it wouldn't give a simple proportional constant but more importantly, not everything would be moving directly away from us, but that's what we see.