Thanks Ixt. That has to be one of the most hilarious articles I've read in years.
"The structures responsible for this motion have been pushed so far away by inflation, I would guesstimate they may be hundreds of billions of light years away, that we cannot see even with the deepest telescopes because the light emitted there could not have reached us in the age of the universe,"
So, what we can actually see is, we are told, but a drop in the ocean compares to what's actually out there. Clusters 6 billion light years away are being dragged by "something" that's maybe hundreds of billions of light years away. But clusters that are 6 billion light years away in the opposite direction aren't being similarly dragged, despite being only marginally further away from the "something" (what's 12 billion when compared to hundreds of billions?).
When you postulate this degree of inhomogeneity, light cannot follow the straight lines of Euclidean geometry. It has to orbit the mass concentrations, which means that if we could look sufficiently far in any direction what we would see is not some distant region, but our own region of space as it was maybe a couple of billion years ago. (Note that a universe which is inhomogeneous to the envisaged degree would look vast and maybe infinite even if it was in reality only a couple of billion light years across.)
Look a bit further and we see our locale as it was twice as long ago, via light that has orbited twice, and so on. That's why there is quantised redshift. That's why distant regions of space look so much like our own, even shortly after the supposed "big bang". They *are* our own local region. There is no other.
By not acknowledging this simple necessity, scientist find themselves instead drawn into ever more complex scenarios. Fantasy piled upon fantasy, all in the name of rescuing the original "Big Bang" fantasy that started it all. But surely someone, someday, will have to call time on this grotesque parody of science. Surely? Before they run out of nouns to stick "dark" in front of?