Was I derailing this thread? Sorry.
No problem. I think Pi and I are both waiting to see what his "guru" has to say, although I've been too busy with other stuff as well to get into this too deeply yet.
Wouldn't you agree that these models all get stuck in the realm of speculation? I guess there could be some observations that could bolster the argument.
Any model about the past is stuck in speculation. Even conceding Pi's point that as look farther out you are looking farther back in time doesn't tell you how those objects came to be in the state that you observe. It just shifts the question farther back into the indefinable past. The thing I like about Humphreys' model is it begins with a Scriptural view of the start of the universe.
Has Humphrey's, or anyone else, used the anomalous observations of space to postulate the possibilty that our perception of distant phenomena are distorted by stretched/condensed time flow? Maybe the universe isn't accelerating, our time perspective just makes it look that way.
...or am I way out in left field?
I'm not sure what you mean by "anomalous observations". Are you talking about the example Calypsis gave of the fact that we still see spiral galaxies as far out as we can see? Actually, I think Cal got his argument backwards in that the farther out we look, the farther back in time we are presumably seeing, until we eventually reach time 0. Galaxies farther out should appear younger (not yet wound up into spirals) in BB cosmology.
Interestingly enough, similarly "aged" galaxies as you go farther out would be consistent with a progressive creation of those galaxies converging on the earth as the universe expanded, and culminating on Day 4 as the light from those galaxies and stars reached the earth while the earth passed outside of the gravitational well.