Fred!

The original point was gravity as the inward curvature of spacetime. That space contracts in gravitational fields. That's why Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant, as a force to sustain a stable universe and balance the contraction of gravity.

In fact, it could be effectively argued that what Hubble found, is this cosmological constant. That the space between galaxies expands in inverse proportion to the rate it contracts into gravitational vortices. These two sides of the dynamic do balance out. It's referred to as, Omega =1. That overall space is flat. This has been interpreted to mean the rate of expansion is neither increasing or decreasing, but that makes no sense, since it ignores the effect of gravity.

I would also note the inward curvature of space is based on the properties of mass, while the outward curvature of space is based on the properties of light. I suspect that as science gets beyond its current models, a better understanding of both light and mass/gravity will explain this measurement phenomena, without the need for "spacetime."

The whole field of physics seems to have become a game of Chinese whispers, where totally off the wall ideas germinate and take on lives of their own.

While it's easy to point to the more obvious examples, multiworlds, multiverses, strings, super symmetry, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc. it's my sense the problems actually go a lot deeper into both our models and the social dynamic playing out in science as a field.

As for redshift as other than a doppler effect, here is an interesting paper;

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

Here is an interesting interview, from 21 years ago, with someone why tried changing minds, to little avail;

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