Strange

In general they are expected to because the collapse is never perfectly symmetrical.

It may seem to be accelerating but if you were to make a measurement such as timing the rate at which the car passes the light posts (or the train passes the sleepers) then you would see that the speed was constant. Also, if you were to measure the Doppler shift of the light from the object, you would see it was constant (until it passes you). That is why science relies on measurements rather than appearances.

Nonsense. Scepticism tests evidence and accepts it if it is good enough. Saying "I am totally ignorant so I am going to assume it is wrong and come up with some random guesses" is not scepticism. As that is exactly what this result is, you are talking nonsense. Nonsense. It is a highly accurate test of observation against experiment. An almost perfect example of the scientific method. Please show, in appropriate mathematical detail that your guesses are plausible alternatives to the analysis provided. Nonsense. I assume you just made that up. Nonsense. I have no idea what you base that on. But if you had read the main research paper, you would see that they do some analysis which puts an upper limit on the mass of the graviton. Meaningless nonsense. How can you equate "curvature" and "force". That is like comparing the price of peanuts with the number of kittens. It is not philosophical. All you did was display your total ignorance of the subject (Which you seem oddly proud of). If you were to ask questions you would get answers. However, you have made it clear that you have chosen to remain deliberately ignorant of the relevant science, so why should I waste my time trying to explain things you are just going to ignore/reject.

On that, I have seen suggestions that the need for "dark energy" could be explained by the fact we are near the edge of a less (or more?) dense area of the universe.

Sounds like Internet + Google ! That is what I use when I am reading something I don't understand.

But that is not what you said: you said your idea was valid until proven wrong. You have now moved on to a more scientific approach: challenge the idea, demand convincing evidence.

Thinking about it, I suppose the assumptions are things like: the invariant speed of light, the equivalence principles and the cosmological principle. But these all seem to be confirmed by observation and experiment so they don't seem unreasonable.

OK. I was just curious why you want to preserve your genetic material. But never mind. Hope someone can help you.

Are you postulating a beginning to the universe? Is there any evidence for that? I am not aware of any supposition. What do you have in mind?

Delay means "arrive later". The delay is caused when light (or gravitational waves) pass a massive object. So, no. All of it would be affected equally. If your bus was delayed, would you expect different parts of it to be delayed by different amounts? It depends: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay#Calculating_time_delay Shapiro delay is gravitational, so presumably yes.

Which peer-reviewed journal is this proof published in? That is not how it works. Otherwise I can claim that black holes are full of chocolate, and demand that you accept it unless you can prove it wrong. It is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

What is it then?

The Lambda-CDM model is based on GR. There is no "proof" of expansion. There is no proof of anything in science. However, you have already been given the evidence for the expansion: red-shift, CMB, proportions of hydrogen and helium, large scale structure, etc, etc. There are few or no alternative explanations for these. And there is no alternative model that explains all of them. That is the scale of your challenge.

No, I don't have an answer. But I am genuinely curious what the purpose of the project is. (And I apologise for the joke as you seem not to like it.)

According to the big bang model, the universe has expanded and cooled. It is pretty straightforward to trace that back and use well understood physics to see what the temperature and density would have been at any point in the past. From that we can calculate the physical conditions (at this temperature, atoms would be dissociated as a plasma, etc.) In your model the universe has not expanded and so it has always been the same temperature. So there would be no "start". So I don't know why you are worrying about neutrons; the universe at any point in the past would be just like it is now. (I don't know why you find neutrons puzzling, but let's not get sidetracked). You said: Which means you reject GR.

At some point that will be insignificant. They would be a series of (concentric) spheres.

"Hey you should build my ludicrously expensive and implausible experiment (and get someone to work out what the results will be) unless you can prove it won't work" Surprisingly, science funding doesn't work like that. The teams building LIGO, LHC, SKA, etc. need to provide detailed project proposals with analysis of the cost and expected results.

Gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light. Therefore, the wavefront will be a sphere.

Scepticism should accept answers based on evidence. Scepticism is not dismissing evidence because you are totally ignorant of it. Scepticism means learning about that evidence and then forming a judgment. Not deciding it is nonsense and then refusing to learn about it. Sounds like one you should break if you want to stop coming across as arrogant and ignorant. (A really bad combination.) I find that hard to believe, given the level of ignorance you have demonstrated in this thread. This is all documented in amazing detail in the papers (and some informal articles) published by the team. The fact you are too lazy to do any research does not give you the right to claim it is all wrong. But it does give us the right to dismiss you as an ignorant troll.

Correct. A sphere.

There was a period where the universe was uniformly filled with quarks. After about 1 microsecond it cooled enough to form protons. At this point there was a plasma (a "gas" of protons and electrons and some neutrons). After another 380,000 years the universe cools enough for atoms to form and photons are free to travel through space. These photons are what we see as the CMB (cooled even further). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang In a steady state theory, none of that would have happened. The universe was always full of stars and galaxies. There is no CMB. And the sky is infinitely bright in all directions. So it sounds like we don't live in a steady state universe. You know, just based on what we observe ("evidence"). Correct. It is not evidence. It is a model that explains (and predicted) what we see. And yet you reject it. What is this flaw? Please show either evidence or the mathematics, or withdraw the claim. I think you would get a much more positive reaction to that approach.

Z is the direction of propagation. There is no compression or stretching in that direction. I didn't mention time, so that was just a description of what happens in the 3 spatial coordinates.

I suppose it is admirable that you are willing to admit your total ignorance. However, it also makes it clear that your opinions on the experiment are worth absolutely nothing. If you have so little confidence in your abilities, I see no reason why anyone else should take your wild guesses seriously.

How would it help? In the economic sense of the word, perhaps.

You should try answering the questions instead of just posting random nonsense. As this thread makes even less sense than your attempts at physics (which is quite an achievement) I think I will put you on ignore.