Jonathan,
On another vein:
"The notion of spacetime is in part motivated by the elevator example, where gravity on the face of the Earth behaves just like the force of upward acceleration does on the floor of the elevator. Rather than imagine that the surface of the Earth is constantly pressing outward at an accelerating pace (like an elevator going up), scientists would prefer to view that time and space form a unified fabric called spacetime - and that it is the downward curvature of this fabric that makes the gravitational acceleration happen."
If we are to accept that there is this downward curvature, which seems equivalent to acceleration, why wouldn't it be far more logical to assume a balancing form of outward curvature, which mimics recession, than to insist these distant galaxies must actually be moving away?
For one thing, it would be the very cosmological constant which Einstein proposed, to balance that inward curvature of gravity.
It would also manifest equally in all directions, thus creating the perception of us, or any point, as being at the center, but without all the conceptual complications of actual recession, just as we are not actually being accelerated in all directions away from the center of the earth!!!
It would explain why the expansion and gravity are inversely proportional, resulting in flat space.
There would be no need for explaining, or ignoring the implications of an initial event, since the consequence would be a cyclical process. One which is suggested by the discussions on this very thread, as to the energy radiating away from gravity wells balancing the mass falling into them.
It just very much seems that all the pieces are already there and no need for enormous patches, like inflation, dark energy, etc, to fill in the gaps.
All it would take is just simply the willingness to consider another form of equivalency principle, as a point of scientific objectivity.
Regards,
John M
