The cosmological principle 9

Are currently accepted views about the universe absolutely correct?

Is general relativity really the correct tool for describing the universe as a whole? On the one hand, we have a cosmological principle, and on the other hand, a model based on general relativity.  The cosmological principle defines the universe as nonlocal, and general relativity is a local theory. Today's vision of the Universe is based on the one hand on this theory, and on the other hand on the interpretation (not necessarily correct) of the results of observations.

Today, as is commonly believed, the expansion of the universe is not related to motion in the classical sense, but is the result of changes in the geometry of the universe (changes in curvature). Is it true? Suppose yes. If so, there is a possibility of "accelerated motion" because it is not about forces, but about the expansion of space. In this sense, the Newtonian (force) model is not relevant. [We remind you that according to the cosmological principle, the resultant force acting on any object of cosmological significance is equal to zero. This is consistent with the thesis that the relative motion of objects of cosmological significance is inertial (uniform) motion.] Although the cosmological principle allows for acceleration (if proportional to distance), doubts and questions arise immediately: What is the reason for the acceleration (if any)? Is it an "outward" acceleration although gravity acts in the opposite direction, although General Relativity only describes gravity attraction? [Here I am omitting the "cosmological constant" that Einstein added to his equation, and fourteen years later he gave it up when it became clear that the universe was not static.]

Suppose there is acceleration after all. The speed increases in proportion to time, and also, as previously assumed, in proportion to the distance - accelerated expansion. Under these conditions, the speed of the quasars should be very high. Is their speed greater than the speed detected in the observation (spectrum)? Not of course. But this would indicate that the universe is much smaller than we think. Is it testable? In this situation, is the speed of the galaxies really proportional to the distance (as we expected - see the formula in article 7)? Observation will decide. Wait patiently.

Regardless, the universe in quasar times was much smaller than today - then gravity (attraction), according to the cosmology based on general relativity, was much stronger than today - counteracting expansion (against outward acceleration) more strongly. Besides, where does this outward acceleration come from? Something's not right here.

So maybe the acceleration decreases with distance? If so, the acceleration of the nearest galaxies should be the greatest. But we do not state this. However, we know that the Andromeda Galaxy is even approaching us at a speed of about 300 km / h. We can see that this option is also unrealistic.

Perhaps the retard of movement of galaxies, decreases with time, but more and more with distance? If so, then the speed of the quasars should decrease very quickly, as opposed to the fact that they move very fast relative to us. So this option is also not remarkable. What if acceleration increases over time? So here with us it must be very high (not to mention speed). We do not detect it. In addition, currently, global gravity (which is supposed to inhibit expansion) is expected to be less than in the past when the universe was smaller (according to general relativity). Also this option is not realistic.

In conclusion, any option other than the expansion of the universe at a constant speed is problematic and even unacceptable. And yet scientists cling to the cosmology based on general relativity (they know no other option) and dream of describing the universe with the help of a cosmological constant that supposedly accelerates expansion (there was no other idea, and you have to move forward). Yet Albert Einstein called the cosmological constant his greatest mistake. In my humble opinion, contrary to today's beliefs, he was right.