the latest test of the universe's homogeneity and isotropy

[notFritzArgelander]

Irrelevant. Your mechanism decelerates. The expansion of the universe is observed as accelerating.

Yes, It is observed as accelerating when the redshift is interpreted as doppler redshift proportional to distance.

No. That's not right physically. It is interpreted as a change in the scale factor of the FLRW metric from the time of of emission to now. It is a common misunderstanding to interpret it as a Doppler shift but it's not quite right. It oversimplifies.

There should be no curve at all in the redshift-luminosity relation for SNIa events in your model. Yet it curves.

If the SMBH in your mechanism that emitted the visible universe were there, the redshifts should show the preferred axis of the jet. It should be not isotropic. No departure from isotropy is seen. Furthermore even those (dubious) studies that hint at anisotropies are inconsistent with your mechanism.

Any person who tries to reason scientifically must honestly accept when facts contradict their ideas. Your mechanism has so many facts contradicting it that....

[metastable]

There should be no curve at all in the redshift-luminosity relation for SNIa events in your model. Yet it curves.

Wouldn't the curve be there if the BH were growing in mass % from an accretion disc faster than the observer increases in distance %?

[notFritzArgelander]

There should be no curve at all in the redshift-luminosity relation for SNIa events in your model. Yet it curves.

Wouldn't the curve be there if the BH were growing in mass % from an accretion disc faster than the observer increases in distance %?

That is another reason why the redshift-luminosity relation should NOT be isotropic as observed. So no.

The pretty pictures might fool some folks but your idea is a lot like the Flat Earth idea.

[metastable]

That is another reason why the redshift-luminosity relation should NOT be isotropic as observed. So no.

In the model if the BH were growing in mass % from an accretion disc faster than the observer increases in distance %, would it look like motion relative to the CMB?

[notFritzArgelander]

That is another reason why the redshift-luminosity relation should NOT be isotropic as observed. So no.

In the model if the BH were growing in mass % from an accretion disc faster than the observer increases in distance %, would it look like motion relative to the CMB?

No. It would look more complicated. It would have a dipole component like motion with regard to the CMB but unless you were positioned exactly at the center of the jet there would be a quadrupole moment as well. You would have to be at a very special location. The Earth would once again be at the very special place at the center of the universe.

So not only does this discussion remind me of flat Earth conspiracy theories but it’s also positively geocentric. I can’t wait for you to go full frontal Ptolemaic and have angels pushing the galaxies to get the observed acceleration. How many epicycles are you willing to put into this excessively contrived mechanism before you can finagle no more?

[metastable]

[notFritzArgelander]

It is easy to use other folks software to post flashy images. But this post is essentially meaningless in the context of this discussion. It is utterly irrelevant to the failures of your proposed mechanism.

Your mechanism for explaining away the accelerating expansion of a homogenous and isotropic universe is falsified by many observations and is artificial and contrived. Pretty pictures and irrelevant data cannot hide the fact that viewing the universe as a jet emitted by some external black hole is intellectually bankrupt and cannot quantitatively or oven qualitatively account for what we see.

The massive fact that your mechanism predicts deceleration and not the observed acceleration is should clue any objective thinker in to the fact that your mechanism fails. Epically. Cosmically. In the manner of a flat Earth conspiracy theory.

Mods, can we lock the thread. This is becoming tiresome.