Doesnt this use of "due to " violate prescribed usage of "due to " Texts say that the usage of due to is justified when it came be substituted with caused by

mundasingh123 wrote:Texts say that the usage of due to is justified when it came be substituted with caused by You are Right. More details can be found in Ron's Session. https://vimeo.com/15391844

That is a strange sentence. "Due to" wouldn't be a problem if there were an actual connection between what followed it and the rest of the sentence.

When I see 'Due to' in a sentence, I replace it with 'caused by' and see if the sentence makes sense. Doing so, I dont see a problem with using 'Due to' in the given sentence.

Jim@Grockit wrote:That is a strange sentence. "Due to" wouldn't be a problem if there were an actual connection between what followed it and the rest of the sentence.So, there is no rule that says "due to " must be preceded by a Noun.What i mean is : The postponement of the match was due to rain ( Right) The match was postponed due to Rain (Wrong ) Thanks

IMO this sentence is wrong... If we replace "due to" with "caused by", the sentence is: Caused by the limitations imposed by the speed of light, the visible universe is estimated to be a mere fraction of the universe. I think "caused by" now modifies "the visible universe". This is wrong. It should modify the action - is estimated to be... Because of should be used here since because of modifies action... My 2 cents here...