Has anyone tried Lorentz contracting the redshift based measurements?
Surely by now, the physicists and followers of cosmology, realize that the shift of light is not Doppler.
I have yet to see or hear any explanation WHY relativity doesn't apply to recessional velocities.
I’m happy to put on a dunce hat if someone can explain to me why a slower expansion rate in the past, especially at Recombination, is a problem. It was the discovery of acceleration that gave us DE,
Cosmological redshift is not a Doppler shift, and no physicist has claimed that in a century, I think. But is caused by photons being stretched by traveling through expanding space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift Photon travel description is based on the Lorentz metric so it is accounted for. (Massless particles can travel at the universal speed limit of light speed in vacuum, so is not affected by variations in time dilation or length contraction of special relativity.)
Space expansion is a scale factor change that is obeying relativity (specifically curved space general relativity, not just flat space special relativity).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology) Through redshift that can be erroneously interpreted as "recessional velocity". But should not be confused with the so called "peculiar velocity" of a galaxy own velocity in relation to e.g. the cosmic background radiation. Peculiar velocities add blue- or redshift to the cosmological redshift observations. The galaxies aren't actually moving due to space expansion when the distances between them increase. Think of a rising raisin bread, the dough may expand but the raisins don't move through the dough.
The scale factor change rate has varied through cosmological time, as enforced by the dominating energy type in the universe energy budget (see the scale factor link). Currently the rate change is dominated by vacuum "dark" energy, a constant factor that drives an exponential rate change. That has been called an "acceleration" in rate change, but mind that the Hubble constant (the Hubble parameter now) that sits in the exponential model is slowly asymptoting towards a lower value. In this case it is the problem to fit the rates to the many observations in the LCDM model that cosmologists mind.
What if the cosmos was in a spin?
How would that explain a common redshift!?
But we can see from the cosmic background observation that the universe is not rotating.
It seems to me that there is a very simple explanation -- The laws of physics are slowly changing as the universe ages.
We know from observations of spectra that atoms and the law they saw have been the same through cosmological history.
No, you did not, that was a comment site essay.
A paper is a peer reviewed scientific text published in a vetted journal that scientists would want to read.
This is not a Law. It is an observation and will likely change.
Space expansion is not a conservation law, it is an observational law since a general relativistic universe can either expand or contract - it is expanding.
The LCDM model may change (or not), that is what the Hubble expansion observations are about.
Is there such a thing as a "relativistic mirage", where we are fooled by "something" caused by "something else"?
The many observations in the LCDM model that cosmologists mind implies that it is a robust model despite the Hubble tension if you integrate all the observations. (The Hubble tension tends to get resolved to the lower values.)
And as noted here, it solved the earlier "mirages" of disparate observational ages for the universe (star ages, cluster ages, expansion ages).
In our case, the mirage is caused by bad assumptions.
#1 Hubble's Law is linear.
The Hubble law dD/dt = H(t)*D(t), D distance, H Hubble parameter. is a linear form. But the relation between distance change rate and redshift depends on the cosmological model.