Trouble with you, and AZPaul3, is that you don't know enough to debate the paper, so you attack the journal that took over a year to review it before publishing it. You are bitter people.....
You embrace "peer reviewed" journals of idiots reviewing idiots who believe in Godless singularities and infinite accelerating expansions of the universe. Total rubbish of "Dark" this and "Dark" that. No TRUTHS, just idiotic THEORIES that you ACCEPT as somehow being "true" because the "mainstream peer-reviewed' journals support them, even though no one EVER proves anything! They, and you, just want EVERYTHING to "fit" GR.
I mean, if Einstein couldn't explain what Hubble saw, and just gave up trying to complete GR and went off looking for a unified field theory, then.... ??????
Just WHO are the DUPES here?
What if it is the "mainstream" journals that have been publishing an endless stream of totally unproven THEORIES for the last 100 years since Hubble that are "lost"? Sure seems to me they are getting nowhere.... Offer no proofs.... Just keep looking for "Dark" answers to "make things fit" the notion that Hubble saw receding objects, and not just "tired" time, so to speak.....
They looked at "tired light", and rightly rejected it, but never even considered "tired" time. (I am using that phrase, "tired time", for the first time here and am giving copyright notice here and now.)
Again, what are you Godless folks doing here? Do you REALLY believe that idiocy? How does the Creator fit into anything you think is right?
Have you read the paper I only just now provided a link to? Or are you just out to put people down here?
Shame on the two of you for your ....., ....., ...., thoughts and comments.
I am not here for that. If you want to discuss my model, I am happy to oblige. I would like to be able to tell you of the implications of the paper in the faith aspects that they had me edit from the final journal version, or that i did not include because I knew they could not accept them.
The word "faith", for instance, is akin to "UFO" in science journals. Peer reviewed journals will not accept anything with Either term. The JofC has no "religious" terminology or the word "UFO".
Otherwise, just shame on you for turning your backs on the first and only paper to be published in a peer-reviewed journal that originates the universe with the eternal Creator, instead of investigating and pursuing that possibility....
No reviewer was able to provide a demonstrable flaw and no one has even tried to comment past me in over 15K views in two science forum threads in nearly a year.
Let me know if you read the paper. I am going to bed....
Edited by Captcass, : Incomplete reply