Attempts to measure the expansion of the universe have come in various forms. The recent Cosmology Crisis (https://www.space.com/why-is-there-a-cosmology-crisis) has me pondering the expansion rate as it relates to spacetime.
I am a rank amateur when it comes to astrophysics, and this train-of-thought could have all kinds of problems, but I do love to learn from the big IQs out there... so here is what I am thinking
Light, (and likely all other similar waves), as it travels from point A to point B, traverses “something”… our current best theory is that it traverses spacetime. We have proven that spacetime can bend and warp light due to influences originating from mass (the greater the mass, the greater the influence). Now, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but what if there are no straight lines in spacetime because mass is always bending it. I would suggest that even the smallest unit of mass bends spacetime and that influence can be measured however infinitesimally small and however infinitely distant from the photon. So, if there are no straight lines because spacetime cannot escape the influence of mass, then there cannot be a shortest distance between two points in our reality. The speed of light is constant, yes, however; light, moving at its constant speed between two points, is consistently being influenced by an infinite number of points of mass contained within the universe and as such cannot reliably used as a measuring tool to establish the distance between point A and point B. To me, this makes the Red Giant or Type Ia Supernovae technique problematic. This “error” in distance calculation can only be measured if you know every point of mass in the universe along with its density and its position in the universe relative to the photon it is influencing. The error result for short distances between two points would certainly be so small that it would lack relevancy in physics but consider how much error could exist between two points that are positioned in galaxies far distant from one another. This error could be enough that the Hubble Constant may not be a constant at all. I suggest that the Hubble Constant may actually be better defined as the Hubble Average Observation or Hubble Median Observation as there would always be a range due to error created by mass influence.
Could it be that photons follow the "path of least influence" on their trajectory?