Any explanation must also explain time dilation in heavily redshifted type Ia supernovae.
"Comparison with the observed elapsed time yields an apparent aging rate consistent with the 1/(1+z) factor (where z is the redshift) expected in a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe. These measurements thus confirm the expansion hypothesis, while unambiguously excluding models that predict no time dilation, such as Zwicky's "tired light" hypothesis."
[0804.3595] Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift
We see this time dilation because these galaxies really are moving away from us at high speed due to expansion. Non-cosmological redshift mechanisms can not produce this type of effect.
I am sorry, but it appears you do not understand the issue.
Without any offense intended, let me try again.
The Santilli diagram terminates any plausibility of the expansion of the universe under whatever geometry thus including the dilation of time.
In fact, you can easily add the far fetched, unverifiable hypothesis of time dilation and you will still remain with the same inconsistency, namely galaxy G2 accelerates over G1 solely for Earth and not for other observers.
The time dilation jazz will only effect the rate of acceleration, also if I assume that the shoe on my right foot contains a mini black hole, I can prove anything I wish, including my being a god...
The moral is that cosmology has gone way out of whack because of of unlimited conjectures, none of which are plausible, and none of which are verifiable on Earth. Thus it is pure jazz.
With respect to that diagram
"However, when z2 and z1 are measured from the galaxy G, we have z2 = z1 since the two galaxies are located at the same distance d2 from G, thus establishing that the galaxy G2 has no acceleration away from G1 when seen from G."
Oh...my. Just wow.
Try and think about it for second...it is space-time itself that we are saying is expanding. All of these objects are expanding away from all of the others as space expands.
The observer at E obviously sees G and G2 receding away from them, with the same redshift, and the closer galaxy, G1, with a proportionally lesser redshift - but all still receding away from them, with the acceleration proportional to distance.
But the observer at G would also logically conclude that they were at the "centre" of their universe, because they would see E with the same redshift as G1 and G2, all receding away from them with their acceleration proportional to their distance (i.e. - the same redshift for all three).
The observer at G1 would also logically conclude that they were at the "centre" of their universe, because they would see G2 and E receding away from them with their acceleration proportional to distance, and see G receding away from them with a proportionally larger acceleration given twice the distance between them.
The observer at G2 would see G and E receding away from them with a proportionally larger redshift, and G1 with a proportionally smaller redshift - but again, all three still receding directly away from G2, with acceleration proportional to distance. Again, they'd observe themselves as being at the center of the universe.
All observers in this diagram therefore quite logically see themselves at the "center" of their universe. Hubble's law works for them too, and there is no logical inconsistency. It's not hard to see why that is true.
So the diagram, far from "disproving the expansion of the universe" due to geocentric issues, actually demonstrates it.
With all due respect, I have to repeat again, again, and again that all of these "learned" explanations collapse into dust because they do not explain the acceleration of the expansion in a way equal to all observers in the universe.
Let's be more concrete, let us assume the far fetched assumption that space itself is expanding, then let's make the additional much more far fetched assumption that the expansion is proportional to the distance as a necessary condition to avoid that G2 accelerates with respect to G1.
Why don't people understand this?
Santilli's diagram clearly establishes in a final form that the conjecture of the expansion of space itself, plus the additional conjecture that the acceleration of the expansion of space is proportional to the distance.
They solely apply for observers on Earth.
Other observers in the universe will see dramatic acceleration and see redshifts which are dramatically incompatible with those measured on Earth E.
In any case, I must stress that this type of thinking is totally vacuous because it is dealing with conjecture after conjecture, while the expansion of the universe has been experimentally dismissed on Earth.
See: santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf
Therefore, we have to be honest here to separate science from fiction.
Until Santilli's IRS measurements are experimentally dismissed talking about all the conjectures is nonsense imo.
!
