Edit: Something related...sorta.
Nice video. Look at all those views. He obviously struck a scientific nerve.
You're catching a bit. The point was Ball (A) hits BEFORE ball (B ) because the forces affecting it have been affecting it for longer. A already has 9.8m/s of speed, because of that 1 second lead time, while (B ) is starting from rest. This is the inverse application of how HC is shown to be Growing rather than shrinking. Kinda. Close enough.
Oh okay. So your point was that distant galaxies have had longer to accelerate away from us? But we're seeing them (and their supposed recessional velocity) as they were in the past. The further away the galaxy, the LESS time it's been moving away from us.
If your point is that the light itself has been traveling for longer through expanding space and this has stretched its wavelength and so isn't a true indication that the more distant galaxies are receding faster than the nearby ones then this is a deviation from the accepted model in which the more distant a galaxy, the faster it moves away from us because of a greater amount of expanding space between us and them.
There is "more space" between the farther galaxies and us. Since space itself seems to be expanding uniformly, more of it means it expands faster. Maybe the Single bacteria petri dish versin of that same additive equation (total at future time)= (current amount)(1+rate)^time (same equation as the mutual fund one)
What that works out to is that if you have 20ly between us and 1 star, that number will expand by the same fixed ratio as the one 10ly away.
Yes I know but even using that expansion model, if galaxies recede faster over a greater distance in space then they're receding faster the further we look back in time and that's a slowing expansion rate. You can't have a universe where galaxies that are more distant in space (further back in time) are moving away from us faster and nearby (less far back in time) galaxies are moving away from us slower AND have an expansion rate that increases over time because it's a contradiction.
An expansion rate that increases over time would mean that the further back in time (the greater their distance from us in space) we look, the slower we see them moving away from us.
Edit: and if you want to REALLY terrify yourself. Use some grade 10 algebra manipulation on that equation and find out at what future time(or total distance) the added extra amount of space become larger than the max speed of light.
Yea I know. That's another issue I have with the model.
As for other explanations... there's quite a few possible ones that arn't quite so "crazy" as they seem on first look.
Do any of them give any reason to think that redshift being caused by distance traveled isn't a much simpler explanation for redshift being proportional to distance?
Or explain how an expansion of the space between two objects is somehow distinct from the objects moving away from each other, faster than the speed of light in this case?
Or explain how the expansion could possibly be speeding up despite the fact that the further back in time we look, the faster the supposed expansion?
If two objects are moving away from each other then the space between them is expanding, if two objects are moving towards each other then the space between them is contracting. There's no distinction between objects moving relative to each other and the space between those objects expanding/contracting. If you were to go through the SR thought experiments with expanding contracting space between the objects then nothing changes. You'd still get exactly the same paradoxes and mass increases if objects were able to reach the speed of light relative to other objects.