I doubt it.

Way back in the late 90’s, I was discussing this in the NYTimes Mysteries of the Universe section of the comments groups they used to have. I’d put the idea up as some curvature of space, that what is curved inward into galaxies, is matched by what curves outward between them. One of the other commentators mentioned that he’d studied cosmology at the University of Chicago and had a somewhat similar insight, but he pointed out that it was much easier to explain as a function of the light expanding out, as the outward curvature, while the inward curvature of gravity is based on measures of mass. Which is the essentially way I describe it now, so it wasn’t even my idea originally.

Though when he mentioned to his advisor that he wanted to do a paper on it, he was told that he’d probably want to find another career, than cosmology, if he decided to pursue the idea.

I have run across a broad spectrum of opinion, from many people who are not professionally involved in cosmology, while those within it seem to stick to the script. Though the point I make about using the premise of spacetime explaining redshift ignores the problem that GR is based on light always being measured as a Constant, has tripped a number of people up, but the usual response is to tell me I don’t know the math and drop the conversation, not actually point out why I’m wrong.

Though in following the subject, the larger theoretical model has grown quite tattered, with everything from multiverses, to the current measurement problem, where two different ways of measuring the Hubble Constant come up with different numbers.

As I said, it seems a fairly fruitless quest, until more information comes available. Such as the James Webb Space Telescope.