Our universe generation is formed by interior of giant dense star, which is collapsing gradually, thus making itself more dense. We are formed by dense material of such star (so called the Aether) as standing waves, which are moving more and more slowly gradually in such dense environment, so that our Universe expands uniformly in all directions from our perspective. This is considerably easier to imagine, then the classical dotted balloon example, isn’t it?

But this is not all. As we can observe the remote objects, we can see them in the less dense environment, the those ones at the proximity. Because the observable matter is more dense, then the vacuum, it collapses too, but more slowly, being “precollapsed” already. So here’s an apparent difference between vacuum density and matter here and at the places of remote objects. This can be interpreted as a gradual increasing of gravitational constant (and another physical constants) and as a dilatation of matter with respect of vacuum.

Here are observable consequences at the case, we can observe the movement of bodies in gravitational field at the distance. Because the gravity force decreases, we can see remote objects as more interacting, then these closer one. Such effect affects the shape of large galaxies, for example and the MOND theory takes account into it. This theory suggests, the gravitational force decrease with distance by more slowly, then Newtonian theory predicts and this effect keeps the giant galaxies more compact, so all stars inside them are rotating as a single body.

The decreasing of intensity of standard candle supernovae at the distance is related to such phenomena too. In more dense enevironment, the intesity of supernovae explosions will get more and more subtle, which effectivelly means, the older supernovae appears stronger and closer, then really are.

Surprisingly enough, albeit subtle, the expansion of matter with respect to vacuum is directly observable, too. By latest optical measurements, the iridium prototype of meter expands slightly (http://www.physorg.com/news64.html). It means, all the distances will elongate slightly at the future, which can be interpreted as a dilatation of time, which disappears gradually from our universe.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/…710.3896v1.pdf

Ellis et al
“We analyze the mean rest-frame ultraviolet (UV) spectrum of Type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) and its dispersion using high signal-to-noise Keck-I/LRIS-B spectroscopy for a sample of 36 events at intermediate redshift (z=0.5) discovered by the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS)…

Although the mean SN Ia spectrum has not evolved significantly over the past 40% of cosmic history, precise evolutionary constraints are limited by the absence of a comparable sample of high quality local spectra. Within the high-redshift sample, we discover significant UV spectral variations and exclude dust extinction as the primary cause by examining trends with the optical SN color. Although progenitor metallicity may drive some of these trends, the variations we see are much larger than predicted in recent models and do not follow expected patterns.”

The real crux of the matter is this: If Riess & Co. were comparing local supernova with distant hypernova, the proof of time dilation in the distant sample is lost – it is in fact nullified; at least as an astrophysical proof of a relativist concept.

The next step is to look very hard at the Goldhaber & Permutter papers between 1999 and 2002. The ’stretch factor’, the single parametric used to scale the light curve width and magnitude; is clearly no longer applicable to this complex family of events. Why then, didn’t the error analysis reveal a bias, this increase in absolute magnitude with increasing distance which is now becoming quite evident? The evidence was hidden by this same parametric assumption; that the light curve widths were time dilated, and in making the ‘correction’, the magnitude of more distant events has been scaled down by shortening the light curves.

It may take another generation of scopes to fully test the hypothesis contained in the last three paragraphs, but this is the only reasonable interpretation I can find for why Goldhaber’s supernova appeared to behave so uniformly; yet today they do not.