--------------------------------------------
"Discussion cannot replace scientific/objective verification. Even if you develop some "elegant" theory that sings harmoniously in mathematical or prosaic or poetic language, it will still be nothing more than speculation until verified or significantly strengthened via empirical testing." KII
---
Some of us are good at creating models; some are good at quantifying models and extracting theories from them; others are good at putting theories to the test. Without all types of individuals, science would get stuck in a rut, waiting for someone like Newton or Einstein who can do all three. Rather than stay in that rut for centuries, isn't it better to do science in the fashion of a relay, with each person contributing his own talents and building on the work those whose talents lie elsewhere?
My model, so far, is the work of one individual who is neither a mathematician nor an experimenter. I have no degree, no funding, no faculty and no laboratory. I am just a lowly retired electronic technician living on so-shallow security. Compare that to, for example, the big bang scenario, which is the combined work of thousands of PhDs with billions of dollars of government support. If my model had that kind of support, there's on telling what valid scientific advances might come of it. Please judge my model on its own merits, not on the author's credentials, or lack thereof.
--------------------------------------------
"If you want to spend some time on something that may prove more scientifically valuable, and could also explain many things without inflation, dark energy, strings, and so on, take a look at the possibility that the speed of light may be slowing down ever so slightly. If it is indeed slowing down (tests needed), inflation, dark energy, acceleration, and so on will be kaput, so guess where the vested interest lies?" KII
---
You are seriously misstating this problem. We are looking at an apparent gradual change in the ratio of the Hubble constant to the speed of light. Of those two parameters, only one is constant by definition, and it ain't the Hubble constant. The speed of light can't change except by changing its definition. As long as the speed of light is constant, by definition, our observations imply a gradual change in the Hubble constant. If we were to allow the speed of light to vary and define the Hubble constant as invariant, that would imply a gradual change in the speed of light.
We have numerous ways to quantify physical space and space-time; each is valid and useful. For the most part, these are mathematically equivalent descriptions of the same physical entity. Consider, for example, the difference between comoving coordinates and non-expanding Euclidean coordinates.
Comoving coordinate axes expand by continuously adding links. The increasing distance of a chain link from the origin is considered to be only "apparent" motion, not subject to the rules of relativity. There is no length contraction or time dilation between the coordinate system and comoving objects.
Non-expanding Euclidean coordinate axes are represented by imaginary non-expanding ideal tape measures. The ends of the non-expanding tape measures are moving and accelerating relative to the physical space around them. If they had mass, they would be in tension. The relative motion between the axes and comoving objects is real, and is subject to relativity. In these coordinates, the expansion of space amounts to a gravity hill, the top of which is the origin, no matter where that origin is placed. That gravity is real in non-expanding Euclidean coordinates, but it does not exist in comoving coordinates.
In Euclidean space, gravity bends the path of light. In Minkowski space-time, the path of light is the definition of a straight line. Consequently, light has mass in Euclidean space, but not in Minkowski space-time. One camp claims that gravity causes the warp of space-time; the other camp claims that the warp of space-time is the cause of gravity. Arguments erupt when conclusions which are valid in one brand of space are interpreted in terms of a different brand of space. Many scientists, who are comfortable working with tensors in Minkowski space-time, are religiously convinced that Euclidean space does not exist in the presence of gravity. That is a form of scientific bigotry.
I apologize for the divergence. My point is that your concept of slowing speed of light may have validity, but not in any of the popular brands of space or space-time that I know of.