[Tony Stanton]

The real question in cosmology is “are we interpreting what we observe in the correct manner?”
If we interpret what we observe and think of space as a metric as in General Relativity, we peer into space and observe that the most distant galaxies have greater redshifts than the galaxies closer to our galaxy. We also have to make up little theories to explain these high redshifts and add that to General Relativity, like dark matter and dark energy, but what are we actually looking at?
The notion of time is lost in all the accepted theories of space and none deal with the flow or arrow of time so is cosmology wrong?
Most people and the science community agree that the speed of light is constant no matter what inertial frame it is viewed from. If this is correct, which I believe it is, then every time we peer into space we must be looking back in time.
You can never see anything in your own real time because it always takes light time to travel from an object into your eyes. The light from the monitor on which you are reading this sentence from has taken a fraction of a second to reach your eyes. When you peer up at the moon you are looking at it as it was about 1.3 seconds ago. When you look at the Sun you see it as it was about 8.3 minutes ago because that’s how long it has taken the light to reach your eyes.
Using exactly the same logic, when we peer at a distant galaxy we are looking back in time and seeing that galaxy in the position it was and moving at that particular speed, as it was billions of years ago. If we could see it in real time it would not be in that position or moving at that velocity today. The universe is a gigantic time machine because the speed of light is constant so by cosmologists using distance and thinking of space as a metric are they looking at cosmology in the right way?
The need for dark energy has arisen because according to cosmology the universe is expanding. The more distant galaxies is the greater the redshift but logically we can only see these galaxies as they were billions of years ago so using logic the Universe must be slowing down not speeding up because we see these galaxies at an early stage of their development when they were moving faster in the distant past than galaxies do today.
Then comes the old reply of ‘but its cosmological redshift’ where it’s the expansion of space that causes the large redshifts in the wavelength of light, but are they right?
Nature is a funny thing it likes to keep things simple and only ever provides one solution for one phenomenon. If an object moves away from us we see its light reshifted, if its moving towards us we see its light blueshifted, but the speed of light always remains the same. The light we receive from distant galaxies is a snapshot of the properties of that galaxy as it was in the distant past. If it has a high redshift then it was moving at high velocity in the distant past. Redshift carries no data about the distance of a galaxy, only its relative velocity.
Cosmological redshift is a bolt on the same as dark energy and dark matter.
I believe the big bang happened and my research of True relativity tells me the big bang was the result of a collapsing negative universe and a rebound from infinity.
I have modelled the big bang from moments before it happened, through the event of the big bang itself past our present day and well into the future, using only geometry and the ideal gas law. This places the event of big bang at around 1 x 10-69 seconds and the model tells me that redshift is purely a result of velocity and that light is a time probe that reveals only information about the object when the photon was emitted. You may not agree with me but in my opinion cosmology has the picture of our universe completely wrong.