What is the problem? The so called "Hubble redshift model" predicts that the universe is expanding like a baking bread with raisins, representing the expanding universe with galaxies as raisins and the observed Cosmic Background radiation (CMB) as the crust of the bread. However then the crust of the bread should be accelerated more than the inner raisins inside the bread.
WHICH is NOT observed. ( see image below) The Early (CMB)/ Late redshift/speed indications are between 67km/s and74km/s. SO THE OPPOSITE AS PREDICTED. According to Q-FFF Theory, HOWEVER The dark matter ( new physics black hole) density variation between Galaxy (clusters) and the less dense clean vacuum should be the origin. So the passage of light through more DM dense aeas will create more redshift and calculated speed of receding sources. As a possible consequence however, the universe could even be in a contracetion mode, caused by enough dark matter redshift density. ( such as Q-FFF Theory predicts for a cyclic Universe.) see also: THIS and: http://vixra.org/author/leo_vuyk and http://vixra.org/pdf/1904.0599v1.pdf
See also: The Splitting Dark Matter- Black Hole- Big Bang and the Cyclic Multiverse.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0065v2.pdf
ER=EPR in the Supersymmetric Cyclic Multiverse and in the lab without strange Cats.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1604.0229v2.pdf
Primordial Electric Dark Matter Black Holes outside Galaxies responsible for the creation and contraction of a Cyclic Universe
http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0068v2.pdf
Black Hole Creation and Destruction of the Cyclic Conscious Multiverse.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1903.0447v3.pdf
The Magic Fermion Repelling Stringy Fuzzball Black Hole, the Origin of a Cyclic Raspberry Multiverse.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1909.0417v2.pdf WHICH is NOT observed. ( see image below) The Early (CMB)/ Late redshift/speed indications are between 67km/s and74km/s. SO THE OPPOSITE AS PREDICTED. According to Q-FFF Theory, HOWEVER The dark matter ( new physics black hole) density variation between Galaxy (clusters) and the less dense clean vacuum should be the origin. So the passage of light through more DM dense aeas will create more redshift and calculated speed of receding sources. As a possible consequence however, the universe could even be in a contracetion mode, caused by enough dark matter redshift density. ( such as Q-FFF Theory predicts for a cyclic Universe.) see also: THIS and: http://vixra.org/author/leo_vuyk and http://vixra.org/pdf/1904.0599v1.pdf
SO The origin of the Hubble controversy according to Q-FFF Theory is,
That the local Dark Energy is decreasing into the direction of the CMB, by the increased longer duration effect of Dark Matter Black Holes vacuum absorption, created direct in the Big Bang BH splitting process. called: DM BH Planck Length elongation effect.
If the above inequality is correct, it implies that dark energy is not a cosmological constant as many cosmologists assume. The alternative to a cosmological constant is a dark energy that is changing over time. Current observational constraints are consistent with this model of dark energy as long as c < 0.5, and future observations of the variation of dark energy can potentially detect or put further bounds on c (Fig. 3).
This graph shows the equation of state parameter w, which characterizes dark energy density as a function of cosmological redshift z. If dark energy is defined by the cosmological constant, then w=−1. The black line is the upper bound on w from observations of supernovae, the cosmic microwave background, and the galaxy distribution. The colored curves are string theory predictions for dark energy for different values of c; see text. Show Less
see dark energy decrease around a black hole nucleus by the BH vacuum lattice absorption. also calle DM BH Planck Length elongation.
see also: Dark energy debate reignited by controversial analysis of supernovae data
https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-energy-debate-reignited-by-controversial-analysis-of-supernovae-data/
Quotation"But Sarkar and colleagues at the Niels Bohr Institute and the Paris Institute of Astrophysics have now upped the ante by writing a second paper, accepted for publication in Astronomy and Astrophysics and uploaded to arXiv. In it they further downgrade the significance of the supernovae evidence, arguing in fact that cosmic acceleration probably does not exist – that what the Nobel prize-winning teams saw was simply the result of local motion in our particular corner of the universe."