Spoonfed wrote:
Actually, my idea is that k=0 and a(t)=1.

What does t denote here? Are you saying that a is a constant function of
time, i.e. that the universe is not expanding? Or are you saying that
a(now) = 1? The latter is not a hypothesis, just a normalization convention.

I'm not convinced that you "speak the language" yet; it looks like you're
just copying stuff from recent posts by Tom Roberts without understanding it.

These are terms from the FLRW metric.

I'd go farther than this and say that they only have meaning in the context
of the FLRW metric, i.e. in the context of big bang cosmology. If you're not
talking about the big bang theory, I don't even understand what you mean by
saying that k=0.

As far as the cosmological constant goes, I don't even
know what it is, let alone what value it might have.

You can ignore it for the time being; conceptually speaking, it's a detail.

By accelerating toward a receding object, but not matching pace with
it, we enter a frame of reference where the space between us and the
receding object is length uncontracted. It will be moving away more
slowly, but also more distant. In this way, the distance will be
greater than you would expect from its velocity. Likewise, the
faintness would be more than you would expect from its redshift.

I think you should stop talking about frames of reference and phrase things
in terms of what we can actually see, which is a 2D projection of our past
light cone. In particular, how should we define the distance of the
astronomical objects that we can see?

Here's an SR conceptual question which may be pertinent. At one end of Main
Street is a clock tower. Alice is running along Main Street toward the clock
tower at a relativistic speed. Bob is standing stationary on Main Street,
looking at the clock tower. At the moment Alice passes Bob, they compare the
times they see on the clock face. Does Alice see an earlier time, a later
time, or the same time?

Imagine at the dawn of the universe, we were being pushed HARD from
below by that hot part of the CMBR.

"Below"? Are you saying that the universe was not isotropic? What was the
distribution of matter? Is it still anisotropic in the present era?

Starting at around this point I can barely understand at all what you're
trying to say. I seriously have trouble distinguishing it from schizophrenic
raving, and I would dismiss it without a second glance if your relativity
tutorials didn't show obvious evidence of sanity. If you're going to make
this theory comprehensible to anybody, you're going to have to put a lot of
effort into clearing up the exposition. The first step in doing this is to
learn the current dominant theory of cosmology, and how to extract simple
predictions from it. Then you can describe how your theory differs from
that. For example, are you aware that the big bang theory predicts that
beyond a certain redshift, galaxies which are *farther* away will appear
*larger* in the sky? I assume your theory does not match this prediction.
This does not necessarily exclude your theory, because I don't know whether
this prediction of the big bang theory has been directly verified. If you
make clear predictions like this which differ from the big bang theory and
are not excluded by experiment, there is a chance that people might take you
seriously. At least they will understand what you're trying to say.

The neat thing about my explanation, though, is that it fits the data.

I'm sorry, but this is almost certainly just wishful thinking. It may fit
the data on whose basis you originally formulated it. But there is a lot
more data than you realize.

Read through Ned Wright's cosmology pages:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

They're full of charts showing the agreement of various cosmological
theories with the data. How confident are you that you can match all of
those data points?

Ned Wright's pages are, incidentally, the most accurate popular introduction
to big bang cosmology that I've ever seen. This is a great place to learn
more about thine enemy.

-- Ben