[phaemon]

How do I know that two objects are either receding or approaching? Because it's obvious. Think about it yourself.

Edit: ah, wait, your theory says that approaching objects look the same as receding ones. I think you need to justify that.

[sahil50]

You misread.

The cosmological redshift is not attributable to galaxies receding.

The cosmological redshift is photons losing energy as they forge a path through the gravitationally connected universe. It's the cost of traveling.

Total redshift = Cosmological redshift (photon forging a path through spacetime) + Doppler redshift (for example, Andromeda drifting toward us) + Gravitational redshift (like how Sun-to-Earth photons are redshifted because the Sun is more massive)

[raattgift]

Since you seem to have a lot of energy to invest in this theory space, why not try your hand at explaining the SDSS-III BOSS results? If you make any progress on that, try SPIDERS and TDSS and explain at least some of the apparent BAOs and high-z = low Tolman surface brightness.

If you're really intrepid, you could try explaining the narrow lines of the Lyman-\alpha forest, and try your hand at predicting it for the background object (or, if you really dig down into your theory, whatever your explanation for the quartet of images at the edge of this structure) in https://research.ast.cam.ac.uk/lensedquasars/indiv/2M1310-17...

Additionally, why is the CMB an almost perfect blackbody spectrum and why is it extremely isotropic? This is a key problem if you plan to retain photon number while depressing photon energy.

While you're there, what is the value of the constant k in your magic equation, and how is it determined? How do you relate this to cosmological neutrino mass constraints in the Mega-Z LRG dataset found by several groups including (slides) http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucapola/Lahav_neutrino2016_8... What is your idea make the hot dark matter vanish and/or fail to couple with your proton mass term?

I don't think that this is a priori unachievable, but it is very much in the land of "show a realistic plan for your work that demonstrates engagement with several public datasets", and is a lot of work for a single author. I would suggest an initial thesis, roughly masters level, with a plan for follow-on work evolving from that initial target. Several widely-cited cosmologists having already had their doctoral dissertations accepted tried their hands at series of individual papers on the back of smaller datasets in the mid 20th century and largely retreated from technical problems in the coupling of emitted photons to specific intervening radiation fields. I don't think their approaches will necessarily help yours, since your equation (your thesis should cite its origin, even if it is a self-cite) does not have an explicit coupling term.

Whether or not you complete this type of project or even have it looked at by anyone else, it is certain that the process of writing it more formally than short Hacker News comments will clarify your thinking. You'll also probably run into some interesting and still technically open problems, and it would be a win for everyone if you helped further resolve some of those.

[sahil50]

Cut the sarcasm because it's going to backfire.

That there are galaxies that appear more frequently at 500 million light-years from each other, is the raw fact. I've read the papers that say that raw fact is proof of big bang LCDM, but that's not actually true. It's not "if and only if" proof, because those papers presuppose the big bang is true and squish the "500 million light-years" observation into their model. They don't consider the possibility of an eternal, eternally evolving universe where 500 million light-years might be an interesting peak of a distribution coming from some interaction of charge and gravity at large scales. Something like chemistry, but at galactic scales.

The cosmic background radiation is likewise not "if and only if" proof of the big bang model. In fact, non-expansionary, non-big-bang models predicted a cosmic temperature around 3K 50 years before Penzias and Wilson. For some reason, this history gets little coverage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Ti.... There's also a curious coincidence that 2.7K is related to 1/3 electron energy density when in equilibrium with its surroundings. https://twitter.com/sahil5d/status/1413375131078914055 ^ not a fact, just speculation.

k is Coulomb's constant. F=kqq/r^2.

The plot of all known redshift data fits photon hubbling (continuous photon decay) (tired light) more accurately than galactic recession. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI61-pDIzzSItw48K0ga...

I could spend lots of time whacking moles, but instead I'm fixing the problem at the root, and that problem is interpreting the cosmological redshift as galactic recession. The reason the academic establishment 100 years ago claimed the redshift was the Doppler effect of galaxies receding, was that it was the only "generally accepted mechanism" at the time. That bug in the code has been covered up with patches and patches of convoluted logic for 100 years. Like "space expanded faster than the speed of light". How people swallowed that one, I'll never know.

Gotta fix the bug at the root. Then talk about the rest like dark matter, dark energy, baryon acoustic oscillations.