The Hubble redshift is cheeting us at long distances with an accelerating universe as result.

Neil Turok recently posted a paper as support for the bouncing universe! see:
Perfect Quantum Cosmological Bounce ( by Niel Turok)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.00699v4.pdf
Quatation:
"Our investigations suggest the existence of a consistent and complete semiclassical description of a cosmological bounce, paving the way for detailed investigations of new, simpler and more predictive bouncing models"
see also:
Electric Dark Matter Black Holes Outside and Inside Galaxies Possibly Related to the Creation and Contraction of a Cyclic Universe.
http://vixra.org/abs/1503.0186
and: Hubble Redshift Combined with Universal Contraction is Possible.
http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0211

The Dark Matter Black Hole splitting symmetric Big Bang: Redshift is cheeting us at long distances.

Sabine Hossenfelder presented: Can we please agree what we mean by “Big Bang”?
Quotation of Sabine:
This is a very common misunderstanding, which comes about because we are used to think of gravity as matter affecting other matter, not as matter affecting space. Matter attracts other matter, but matter (of any type) causes the universe to expand
http://backreaction.blogspot.nl/2016/07/can-we-please-agree-what-we-mean-by-big.html?spref=fb 

Sorry Sabine Hossenfelder, 
IMHO, the universe is contracting simply by a different new view on the Hubble redshift, originated by the frequency reduction ( redshift related) around much more proliferated dark matter black holes than cosmologists calculate with. .So the tired light hypothesis is now based on ark matter black holes!
This means that redshift is good for distance observation, but not for receding galaxy speed, at long distances!!! 
see:
The Splitting Dark Matter- Black Hole- Big Bang and the Cyclic Multiverse.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0065v2.pdf
and: http://vixra.org/pdf/1503.0186v5.pdf

Example of stellar density with dark matter BH redshift potential for each star.

Not only galaxy black holes but also Sellar Anchor Black Holes ( SABHs) halos around the galaxy.

Shocking: I am not myself, but only 1/12 part of myself in the 12 fold symmetric multiverse.

See:

Democratic Free Will in the Instant Entangled Multiverse.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0071v2.pdf
The entangled multiverse solution: If we assume that we are living inside one of the 12 copy universes, (as is proposed in ref 2) which are each others observer by “mutual instant entanglement” to trigger randomly and alternating the collapse of the copy wavefunctions inside all universes, (thus also to trigger a volitional act, like Libet's subjects) in the other 11 universes. Then as a consequence, we may expect that only a small part of the students will report to have had the conscious intention to act earlier. Thus in the case of 12 entangled universes we may expect that 1/12 part or 8,3 % of all (human) timing of conscious intention to act, will show a reversed timing sequence between the so called Time of conscious awareness (TCA) which will come before the electric Readiness Potential (RP). Indications of those percentages, are already found by Judy Trevena and Jeff Miller (Otago university NZ). See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12191935&dopt=Abs

The Benjamin Libet percentage results of pre-planning (RPI) are very poor quantified in his and later experiments. Libet wrote to me in private, that these numbers where "buried" inside his files and therefore, he was not able to produce them. I my view this is a good reason to do it again with more precision on the readiness potential percentage differences between RPI and RPII. If humans are entangled cooperating decision makers inside the postulated 8 or 12 entangled but separated universes, then for every decision we need always only one preplanning test-person who pre-plans his choice. The other 7 or 11 test copy-persons are only able to follow OR VETO this decision.
The consequence: There are 12 myselfs:  I think, so we are!

New Scientist : "PHYSICS FEATURES 15 December 2015
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830520-800-god-vs-the-multiverse-the-2500-year-war/ 
"God vs the multiverse: The 2500-year war.
"An infinite universe and many worlds leave no room for a creator. Time to rethink what’s sacred, says philosopher of religion Mary-Jane Rubenstein"However, Quantum FFF suggests; 
the Higgs vacuum dark matter black hole particles takes over for the bouncing multiverse, in contrast to the creation of humanity and ethical laws.. Let alone the creation of all the Higgs particles itself.

It is indeed hard to grasp the new physics suggested around electric dark matter black holes as a base for universal expansion and contraction. 

However if black holes only can merge in in over crowded BH areas like the center of galaxies -where the Higgs field is chaotic polarized- and in contrast outside those areas are able to produce Herbig Haro star systems, then there is logic behind the magic.

Other vacuum reference frame effects beyond Shnoll and Sheck.

See: https://www.academia.edu/8467271/The_O_Connell_effect_in_eclipsing_binaries_explained_by_mass_related_light_speed_extinction_distances_LASOF_of_stars_and_even_planets

It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form.
Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles.
David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave".
John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real
"Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction.
Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum.
He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum.
However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.

Pear shaped atom nuclei seem to point into only one fixed direction in space

Dr Scheck says: "We've found these nuclei literally point towards a direction in space. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-36597142?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link 
and: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01485v1.pdf

For the 3D atomic ( with a central axis) model of Quantum FFF Theory: see below.

According to Quantum FFF Theory all nuclei should have a small pear shape pointing into the same direction as a compensation for its absolute velocity in the Higgs field !! That velocity direction is also showed up by the redshift/ blueshift axis of the CMB ( Cosmic Microwave Background)
see: figure 15 at: http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0041v3.pdf
"The Shnoll Effect explained by Quantum FFF theory."
The pear shape of the radium 224 and barium 144, showed that nuclei could have more mass at one end than the other.
IMHO the pear shape should be related to earlier experiments made by Simon Shnoll .
He found the radioactive decay products have a directional preference related to massive objects around us like the sun and moon.

Quote: "The 27 day sidereal moon related period of similar histograms found by S.Shnoll, seem to
show a split in 2 or 3 subgroups of similar histograms. (fig. 13)
These subgroups are supposed to be a support for a DOUBLE truncated tetrahedron 3D polarization of the vacuum lattice as reference frame with CUBIC and HEXAGONAL lattice
directions.
Michelson-Morley didn’t find the ether, BUT Simon Shnoll did!"

I would suggest that related to Shnoll effects, and the conclusion that each ( heavy) atom could show its relation to a complex ( galaxy solar moon related) reference frame.

If it is possible to measure in real time the variability of the central pear axes of the atom during the experiment, then we may know the truth about the a Michelson Morley idea. and the vacuum reference frame around the earth.

For other vacuum reference frame effts, See also: https://www.academia.edu/8467271/The_O_Connell_effect_in_eclipsing_binaries_explained_by_mass_related_light_speed_extinction_distances_LASOF_of_stars_and_even_planets