[a1120028]

A lot of the basic idea is sound, where I see room for improvement is in supposed redshift values so high in quasars that an almost meta-physical process must be at play to explain their brightness. I put forward as does Arp and quite a few others that there may exist a non cosmological component to them.
There have been a few other theories put forward including one that involves varying particle mass over time, within which the CBMR can be explained with no need for inflation or the big bang.
I'm not disagreeing with accepted ideas because I have nothing better to do. I'm actively working on finding solutions to Einsteins field equations and in other areas that can account for red shift mathematically. As it stands it is only observational data that gives us our current understanding.
Any complete cosmological model (I feel) MUST be able to account for redshift within that framework. And as for the accelerating expansion, well conservation of energy only applies to closed systems so if the universe turns out to be open does the conservation of energy even apply?
Is there even a need to have dark energy?
Who knows but it's fun trying to find out even a small piece of the puzzle.

And as for complex factors in the special theory, I'll have to think about that one. Although what I find even more interesting is the discontinuity at 1-v^2/c^2 as v^2 approaches c^2 then we have 1-1=0 ...m or v/root 0, sorry about the math shorthand