I hit an unexpected road block. There was no way to pay for a haircut let alone food, rent or university tuition. When after a few years I finally had a place to live, I felt obligated to study a minimum of sixteen hours a day. I could solve the most difficult math problems in a fraction of the time other students could, but pushed myself too hard. My health and income gave out and I nearly died, more from quack doctors than what turned out 30 years later to be Lyme disease. It took five years to recover, but afterward it was impossible to get a decent job.

After leaving the USA in 2005 life was finally good, but the education seemed wasted. I recognized Einstein's relativity as a fraud plundered from the simple effects of velocity on meter length and clock speed in 1972, so did a website on it in 2007. Nobody saw what looked obvious to me or cared. If the little Einsteins here cared enough to cover up the Pound-Rebka fraud I explained a few weeks ago, then they must know in their hearts I'm right, so let me walk you through it as simply as I can. I hope you will come to agree that there is a cosmological (gravitational) redshift as confirmed by numerous experiments and finally understand it correctly as I do and NOT the current field of cosmology.

The key is understanding the natural definition of a meter, x number of wavelengths of a specific spectral line. If you move the measuring apparatus 22.5 meters, nothing changes. The meter is the same, the frequency of light unchanged, and the time it takes to get from end to end the same, so this not only defines a meter but the fundamental unit of time. However, a "remote" observer in Einstein's dialect sees that light shifts towards the red when leaving a body of mass. If the mass is twice as much, the degree of redshift is twice as much; hence, the fractional change in length of a meter twice as much and the clock has to run faster to keep up. But these effects are observed only "remotely." Where the meter is concerned (local observers), there has been no change at all in length, frequency or clock speed.

These are the simple fundamental facts of space and time, not Einstein's twisted versions used to construct his relativity hoax based on time and space dilation. If you fix this in your head, flush relativity out of it and make a few correct inferences, you end up finding the Holy Grail of physics which is what I'm trying to convey to others in the few short years between here and my impending grave. The 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment tells us nothing that wasn't known about redshift fifty years earlier. The original wiki article was just a handy place to show that relativity was a fake and emphasize how gravitational blueshift and redshift affect the length of meters and rate of time even though there are no changes on the local level. It helps to split your thinking into two halves, the local level (inside the local box) and the remote observer who alone is able to observe and measure these changes that result from frequency change. You can't in fairness call me wrong without denying the natural definition of a meter in which case our entire system of units collapses. I am sorry for being stubborn, yet not open to argument.

Hang on for a bit. We know, no thanks to Einstein, that light velocity is fixed at c, but light leaving the Earth at rate c will in fact accelerate, not as a result of Einstein's relativity as claimed, but simply due to the expansion of meters with redshift. The bottom line is that light accelerates away from Earth at the exact rate bodies fall in the opposite direction, and the increase in distance traveled by falling bodies coincides with the opposing rate of expansion of space measured only indirectly in terms of redshift. Acceleration is a force; hence Newton's 3rd Law of Motion applies: every action (expansion) creates an equal and opposite reaction (gravity). Distant celestial bodies do not exhibit progressive changes in redshift because they are outside the range of gravitational influence; hence, the redshift observed is due to uniform expansion of space and of true Doppler origin. Our measurements regard these distant stars as fixed in distance, but in fact they are receding away due to uniform expansion fixed in proportion to mass.

Therefore, it is without question that Earth is expanding at a far greater rate than we are, but since everything expands simultaneously in proportion to its mass, we do not perceive this expansion as such. Hence, we are not falling to be precise. Instead, being of smaller mass, we are being forced into space by the accelerating expansion of Earth at 9.8 m/s^2. Don't try to deny it because the very nature of redshift demands this inference is correct. So, if Earth is expanding at g/s^2, which it must be, the universe a whole must expand at the accelerating rate c/s where the potential energy at its surface is mc^2. This is simple arithmetic. Since light must accelerate away from mass just as it does on Earth, the universal speed of light is fixed internally at c for all observers inside the box and the kinetic energy holding particles together in at atom is E=mc^2. Light consists of waves, not photons or corpuscles or mass; hence, photons are not expelled by little atomic cannons, but light is propagated outward from atoms at the fixed rate of c in all directions. This and only this explains the results of Michelson-Morley.
I apologize for not being open to argument on these facts, though I well expect many people can't follow them either because they lack sufficient scientific background or have been too brainwashed by Einstein's ideas. I accept that to the extent I'm ignored I'll probably be despised, but I'm almost 75 now and want to contribute to the advancement of knowledge and not get sucked into a black hole by the cult of Einstein before my time runs out. That's why I wrote The Big Bang Boozle book.

One other thing. If the universe expands outwardly at rate c/s as does Earth at rate g, then Newton's G, a fixed geometric construction and not a theory, must be equal to R^2/M (c/s) where R is the radius of the universe, M the mass of the universe, and c/s the rate of expansion. Check me for accuracy, pretend the mass of the sun is the entire universe. Then M is mass of the sun, R the radius of the sun. Check me out and see if c/s is not 274 meters per second per second; hence, speed of light in a sun universe would be 274 meters per second. This means that there could have been no Big Bang. The internal dimensions of the universe are fixed; however, for observers billions of light years away, the progressively greater expansion of the universe as a whole would be reflected as accelerating redshift as Hubble observed, yet neither the dough or the raisins are expanding in the universe we live in but all points in space expand simultaneously into an infinite void possibly filled with CMB. I hope I've given light to your day. Thanks for listening.

ERROR CORRECTION: "So, if Earth is expanding at g/s^2, which it must be, the universe a whole must expand at the accelerating rate c/s"...
I meant expanding at rate g, not g/s^2.