They See It Too — But They Blame the Wrong Thing
Mainstream cosmology fully accepts that the universe’s expansion is accelerating. This conclusion is based on well-documented observations: distant galaxies are more redshifted than expected, and Type Ia supernovae appear fainter than they should under a simple, constant-rate expansion. In response, cosmologists interpret this acceleration as a sign that space itself is stretching faster over time.
To account for this, the standard model introduces the concept of dark energy—an unknown repulsive force thought to make up roughly 70% of the universe’s total energy content. Mathematically, this is expressed as a cosmological constant, Λ, inserted into Einstein’s field equations. The resulting story is one in which the universe originally expanded rapidly, slowed down due to gravity, and then, several billion years ago, began accelerating again under the influence of dark energy.
But this interpretation rests on a series of hidden assumptions. It assumes that inertia is constant. It assumes that the speed of light is fixed across all epochs. It assumes that time flows at a uniform rate everywhere and always has. And critically, it assumes that redshift directly maps to recession velocity in an expanding metric.
Stein Theory discards all of those assumptions.
In the Stein framework, the early universe was a denser place not just in matter, but in angular interaction—its Cylindrical Zones of Influence overlapped far more tightly, creating greater inertia. Clocks ticked more slowly. Light travelled more sluggishly. Redshift, in this view, is not a measure of how fast something is moving away from us. It is a measure of how slow that distant clock was when it emitted the light we now receive.
In this sense, mainstream cosmologists are not wrong to say the universe is accelerating. They are simply misattributing the cause. The observed acceleration is real—but it is not due to a growing cosmological repulsion. It is the result of falling inertia. As the COI field thins over time, resistance to motion declines, allowing all dynamics to accelerate naturally. There is no need to introduce exotic energies or rewrite the vacuum. The fabric of space is not stretching faster. It is simply becoming easier to move through.
So yes, they saw it too. They measured the same acceleration.
Correcting the Hubble Constant
To properly interpret the redshift–distance relationship in the universe, we must rethink what redshift means. In standard cosmology, redshift is treated as a velocity indicator: the farther away a galaxy appears, the faster it is presumed to be receding from us due to the stretching of space. From this assumption emerges the Hubble constant, a linear relation between redshift and distance—initially thought to be fixed, but now observed to vary with redshift, creating tension between local and cosmic measurements.
Stein Theory takes a different view. It proposes that redshift is not caused by recession velocity but by a falling timebase caused by declining inertial resistance. In the early universe, the COI field was dense, meaning particles experienced stronger geometric resistance to change. Time itself moved more slowly, and light propagated more sluggishly through this dense inertial field. As the universe evolved and the COI density thinned, inertia fell, and with it, resistance to change decreased. This caused time to run faster, light to accelerate, and all dynamical processes to appear to gain energy—not because something was added, but because friction was removed.
From this, it follows that the Hubble constant is not constant across time—but not in the way standard cosmology suggests. In the standard view, the Hubble constant was higher in the past and is levelling off now. In Stein Theory, the Hubble constant was lower in the past and is rising today—not because of an expanding metric, but because falling inertia is allowing the same geometric change to occur more rapidly.
To illustrate this, we recalibrate the Hubble constant using a corrected model. We begin with a single calibration point—a redshift of z=1z = 1z=1, corresponding to a luminosity distance of 3.26 billion light-years in standard cosmology. From this, we derive a decay constant for the COI field k = 0.2125 Gly-1, allowing us to translate Stein geometry into modern units. We then recalculate the effective Hubble constant at different redshifts, showing how the traditional interpretation overestimates expansion in the past and misses the true acceleration in the present.
Table: Redshift, Distance, and the True Hubble Constant
Redshift (z)Lookback Distance (Gly)Standard H(z) (Assumed Expanding Space)Corrected H(z) (Falling Inertia Model)0.00.0072720.10.4579700.51.59108661.03.26144602.05.47204504.08.18360367.010.685762410.012.437921813.714.10105014
Interpreting the Table
The leftmost columns reflect redshift and the standard model’s estimated distance to those redshifted sources, expressed in billions of light-years. The third column shows the Hubble constant as cosmologists typically infer it at each redshift—rising dramatically with distance, leading to the conclusion that the universe must be accelerating its expansion under the influence of some repulsive energy.
The rightmost column shows what Stein Theory reveals instead: the Hubble constant was lower in the past and has increased as inertial resistance has declined. The apparent acceleration in standard cosmology is simply a projection error, caused by assuming light and time behaved as they do now, even in epochs where the inertial geometry was vastly different.
Conclusion
Correcting the Hubble constant doesn’t require new particles or mysterious energy fields. It requires only that we understand redshift for what it is: not a Doppler effect or a stretching of space, but a visible signature of the changing geometry of time. Stein Theory explains the observed acceleration not by inventing forces, but by removing a hidden one: inertia itself.
The Hubble tension is not a contradiction—it is a clue. And when we let geometry speak for itself, the contradiction vanishes.