Avtar:
Please stop spamming my space with discussion about your own theory. You're not attempting to relate it to my essay (which aspect of my argument do you disagree with, except on principle according to your own suppositions?), and it's apparent to me that you understand very little if anything about cosmology in any case. By `linear Hubble expansion in the far field', do you actually mean that you think cosmologists describe recessional velocities as going like v=H_0d, rather than describing expansion through Friedman's equations? I told you what the axioms of the standard model are: isotropy and homogeneity of space which is synchronous in the proper frames of all fundamental observers. After that, the RW line-element, which I've reproduced for you above, is run through Einstein's equations and you get Friedman's, describing a(t) as parametrised by different possible energy densities, pressures, and the curvature of space. Friedman's equations amount to
[math]\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=H(t),[/math]
which is a function of t depending on rho, p, and K---i.e. H(t) is not H_0, which is its present value---and therefore not `linear in the far field', but approximates as such in the *near* field, where H(t) is approximately H_0.
As I've said, please stop posting about your theory here. I've grown tired of dealing with your incorrect suppositions, and the way you so forcefully assert them as facts. And more than that, this space is supposed to be for discussions about my own essay. If you care to know, I've actually provided a rational argument *against* one of the axioms regarding the standard model's description of cosmic time in my essay...
Daryl