Hmm .. so 'Davd' (Crawford) kindly responded to my question at CQ as follows:
I'm reading up more on his Curvature Cosmology at the moment and how his above mentioned mechanism works.
'Twill be interesting to discuss this further here (which is probably more appropriate than in the CQ ATM Forum thread).
PS: That's as long as Michael doesn't distract us with his usual 'spin' on it all!
I had a quick look at David Crawford’s CC paper and I must admit I am impressed with the depth of detail and a thorough knowledge of mainstream science which is not surprising as he is a physicist.
This is totally unlike the Electric Universe nonsense which is so ridded with errors anyone with even a basic knowledge of science can drive a truck trough.
He recognizes that a static Universe is unstable and therefore requires a “curvature pressure” to counterbalance the effects of collapse.
Einstein had the same idea with the cosmological constant which is today’s equivalent of dark energy.
Curvature pressure however is analogous to Newton’s third law for reaction forces that prevents collapse from occurring.
Along with curvature pressure is curvature redshift which is based on the principle that a family of geodesics curves which are the shortest distance taken by particles and photons in spacetime are compressed or focused. This assumes that the Universe has a closed or spherical spacetime geometry.
Photons travelling on these geodesics as waves undergo focussing which alters the angular momentum and produces photons of lower energy which is the primary mechanism for redshift and not through scattering.
I am not too sure of this mechanism.
I can see problems as the theory doesn’t match observation.
First of all the evidence is very strong through the angular separations of structures in the CMB that the geometry of the Universe is flat which prevents his curvature redshift mechanism.
Secondly the presence of gravitational lensing should be an environment for local curvature redshift, yet there is no evidence of photons passing through gravitational lenses being redshifted.
This is consistent with the mainstream mechanism of gravitational redshift/blueshift where a photon entering the gravitational lens initially undergoes gravitational redshift which is cancelled out by blueshift when it exits the lens.
Thirdly Olber’s paradox is not resolved.
Assuming curvature redshift exists the redshifting of visible photons still results in a bright night sky in wavelengths other than the visible spectrum.
In David Crawford’s response there is the suggestion of a finite age which that could resolve the paradox but opens up a can of worms as to how a static Universe can be created.
I hope you can continue the dialogue with him, at least you are guaranteed an intelligent discussion.