I was watching this video by "See The Pattern" today:

It was really nice to get back into the topic.

One thing that made me really happy to see was that the presenter talked about one thing that always bugged the crap out of me: Narlikar's ever-increasing mass. m=at², if I remember correctly?

I mean, I get what that was trying to do: to give some explanation for the redshift decreases for QSO ejecta over time.

However, it does mean that we end up with the "where does the mass increase stop?" issue. I know there are some alternate explanations for that, but they do not sit well with me.

Also for me, it means that we still end up with two sources of redshift, if I'm not missing something. Age decreasing redshift with mass with time but having an overlaid redshift with distance on top of it? I mean, sure, it's entirely possible to have two sources of redshift, but I would at least like to briefly entertain the possibility that they could be part of the same phenomenon, and that the redshift over distance engages a phenomenon the way Hubble envisioned it (but did not know the source even as he considered it more likely to be different physics rather than recession)... and perhaps also that whatever that phenomenon is (I seem to recall some commenters here talking about possible sources like free electrons in the path of the light?), that young objects have an abundant source of whatever this phenomenon entails?

Sorry, brain buzzing a bit.

Also interesting to note that the mainstream attempts to find the Hubble Constant for expansion seem to be converging on two rather separate values the more precisely they get into it, and even adding in other possibilities, e.g. lensing, they STILL end up with two separate values.

I won't try to nyah-nyah that too much. I just want some creative back-to-basics cosmology trying a lot of different things from different assumptions rather than the current "let a thousand tweaks bloom" approach :)