Ben,

I'm not asking you to believe me. As I said, you are on the inside, looking out. If 1000 Phd's all got together and said they had concluded that 1+1=3, would you just accept that, because they must know what they are talking about, or would you think they had all gone crazypants?

The point I made was simple logic. Let me run through it one more time;

1)The universe is expanding.

2) How do we know this? Because the light of distant sources is redshifted and light can only redshift due to recession.

3)So the light is taking longer to cross the universe, as it expands? Yes.

That's the theory.

My point is that, according to the logic of this theory, it means the expansion is relative to the speed of light. Do you understand the logic of this? That the essential premise is that as there are more lightyears, as the universe expands, it is this metric defining the expansion, making the speed of light the denominator. Which makes the expansion the numerator. I assume you understand the difference and relationship between a denominator and a numerator. That the denominator is the metric and the numerator is the quantity of that metric.

As Einstein said, "Space is what you measure with a ruler." And in this theory, the speed of light is still being used as the ruler, against which the expansion is measured.

There used to be a lot more questioning of BBT, up until the 90's, by which time the original generations had pretty much died off, leaving this crew of camp followers.

Here is one of the few articles I can still find on line. It's not directly about cosmology, but it gives you some flavor of the debates that have been drowned in the current multiverses, multiworlds, string theory, mathematical overreach conformity;

http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html