Leo Vulk:
I appreciate your comments on my paper.
As a premise to my thoughts I assume that we are all promoting our own agenda and are only reluctantly pulled away to openly review someone else'e ideas.
But I did read your paper and was unable to fully comprend all that you worked through, so I'll reserve comment for now.
My approach was/is to use the evidence at hand, that collected by the astronomers over the last few centuries, and to "keep it simple".
The Cosmological Redshift (CRS). This is hard evidence and tells us that distant galaxies have redshifts and that their redshifts increase as distance increase, but at an accelerating rate. It says nothing about 'receding galaxies'.
The Dark Mass (DM) was found to be present in and around galaxies and to respond to gravity. To substitute Dark Matter, or Dark Energy, is to infer something that is not proven. To infer that it fills the whole of the Observable Universe (OU) should be obvious. To infer that light must travel through the DM is obvious. To infer that the DM is the medium that develops the permeability and permittivity of 'the vacuum' is logical. From this last, to infer that it affects the speed of light is logical. Even to speculate that the equation in my paper is applicable is not illogical.
The Galaxy Cluster (GC) was found to be spread throughout the OU was a feat of the astronomers that astounds me, and to determine that the gravity of their central Seyfert galaxy was steadily at work, was even more astounding. To infer that as the galaxies and DM is being compressed is logical, and then of course, to recognize that this compression of the DM is just what is needed to give us the CRS, as observed, a redshift that seems to follows the equation cited above.
The Black Hole (BH) is an exotic invention that was needed to get rid of accumulating masses without having to account for where it goes (except to posit a white hole, or even evaporation, etc.) But, in an infinite and eternal Existance we can't afford to throw away even so much as an atom. All must be preserved to make eternity possible.
So I believe that the massive central Seyfert galaxy contains a mechanism that is doing wonders in transformin these masses back into new galaxies (called Quasars intially), at a 100% efficiency, and that these new galaxies are then gobbled up by its parent GC, or even by adjacent GC's.
Where have I gone awry?
Jim Wright