Strange

Mathematics is not dependent on physics or even reality. I can add 1 to something without having to subtract 1 from anything else (unless I am doing double entry bookkeeping).

It assumes homogeneity as a simplifying assumption. More detailed models take the changing distribution of mass into account (see, for example, the simulations of large scale structure referred to earlier). The Sachs-Wolfe effect is a measurement of the very effect you are claiming to be ignored. Note how it says that superclusters (i.e. the presence of large mass) reduce the red shift and voids increase it. This is exactly the opposite of what your idea requires. As all the existing theory and evidence shows you are wrong, remind me again why we should take your religious/superstitious beliefs seriously? I dont argue that the distribution of force does change, not the amount of mass. I argue that the effect/force of gravity changes. But they do not address this, they use English language to state these facts. Or so I perceive. Do my English skills need to be addressed? Or is it really a problem with my logic? I've suggested that this issue is enigmatic....

You think that changing mass can cause the red-shift that we observe. Correct? From this you deduce that the universe is not expanding. Correct? (Actually, that is the wrong way round: you have an emotional objection to the idea that the universe is expanding so you are desperately searching for some alternative explanation.) There are many problems with this. We have tried to explain some of these problems. Both in simple terms, and by reference to the (necessarily) complex maths. You have dismissed the simple explanations as handwaving with no maths. And you refuse to accept the mathematical explanations because you don't understand them.

It is not a flaw. It is not ignored.

Yes, that is exactly what it describes.

I have no idea. But I doubt it is that simple. Effectively, yes. That is what a gravitational wave is. No. It is non-linear.

You mentioned dark energy and I'm trying to understand why. That's all. I can't imagine why you see it as impertinent. And that is part of the big bang model.

Of course. Motion is relative. If you look at a point, there is nothing to compare it to. Of course.

So technology increases the fear of loss. So technology reduces the fear of loss. I'm confused.

You might be convinced you are wrong but not be able to see why (this has happened to me several times at work; I have usually missed something really obvious). See for example, the paper published about "superluminal" neutrinos. The authors explicitly said: "this must be wrong, help us work out why".

The same illusion might occur. But, of course, when you make MEASUREMENTS you will find the illusion is ... what shall we call it: an ILLUSION.

A number of problem with this (beyond the ones Mordred mentions): 1. The shift would be the same for all galaxies - remember we are seeing galaxies after they have formed, and so with a (relatively) constant mass. 2. Even if you insist the shift is because galaxies are forming, there is still no reason for this to have a strict linear relationship with distance; it would, instead, depend on the age and mass of the galaxies. 3. Assuming that all galaxies are roughly the same as ours (a simplification that is appropriate for your model) then there would be redshift as the light left one galaxy compensated by blue shift as it approached ours. 4. We see red-shift where there is no concentration of mass. (If it was due to gravitation, as you suggest, the light from such areas would be blue shifted by the gravity of our galaxy).

I am still trying to get a clear answer to this question:

That is the view of the effect of a linear polarized wave on the x and y dimensions (where z is the direction of travel); i.e. you are looking along the z axis (direction of propagation). Linear polarization is seen looking "edge on" to the pair of black holes (http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03840). Movement is relative remember. So if you shift the point of view, then the point at the center in that diagram will move relative to the new central point.

Have you got a supercomputer handy for the simulations? There is no equation that will allow you to calculate this. This image is looking "head on" to the approaching wave. Just imagine that in 3 dimensions ....

It might correspond to "apparent" acceleration but if you were to use the sleepers as units of measurement, you would find there was no acceleration. I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make any more. You have spotted an interesting optical illusion. Is that it?

You don't need GR to explain Doppler shift so I'm not sure what variables you are referring to.

What is not based on things you have said? You want to redefine gravitational and Doppler shift. You want to prove expansion isn't happening. And you are ignoring evidence.

The trouble is, Doppler shift requires relative movement and gravitational red shift happens even with no movement. It is hard to see how they are the same thing. Don't you think it would be wise to learn a little more before trying to say it is wrong? Do you understand that the expanding universe does NOT require dark energy? Perhaps now you have a slightly better idea of what "a scientific fashion" means? To summarize, it means having an idea, converting the idea to a (mathematical) model and comparing that model with the observations. You have achieved step 1 but not got any further. Science is founded on logic. However, I suspect when you say "logic" you mean something like "makes sense". Absolutely wrong. There are plenty of non-scientists who use critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the other tools of science. Sadly, there is no evidence that you have yet done this. You are basing your argument on personal beliefs and nothing else. The fact that it is a scientific model does NOT mean it can't be questioned. In fact, as it is a scientific theory, it is essential that it is challenged. However, saying that you don't like it is not a challenge to the science. Of you can and should do that. But first you have to learn and understand the science.

Can I ask (again): what do you think is the reason for dark energy being hypothesized? Do you think it is because of expansion? This is very important, so please answer this time. We know you haven't used science because you don't have a mathematical model to test.

No, you haven't. You keep saying you will, but you never do. (You may think you have, but if so it is lost in the waffle.) What consequences?

I don't think so. It doesn't seem to represent the stretching and contraction of space (in orthogonal directions). It seems to be just a generic image of waves. (The source page is no longer there, so I don't know how this was generated or what it is supposed to represent).

It explains why someone who is not very bright is confused by perspective. Take from that whatever you think is appropriate.

This article seems to answer at least some of your questions: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35895138

There is. That is the only way there is an analytical solution (which is why they have do massive simulations to model what happens with the black holes). And, as has been [repeatedly] pointed out, it is a reasonable approximation when you get a few diameters away. There is. It is called the theory of general relativity.