'The CMB and dark flow - in classic theory vs. Space-Interaction theory'

'The CMB and dark flow - in classic theory vs. Space-Interaction theory'

( I believe the subtitle to the article may have been changed since I posted this.   Im not positive, but I dont remember it referencing siblings.  It is possible I missed it, so Im not sure.  Strange if I didnt miss it. )

Dont be spooked by the term dark flow.   I didnt come up with it.   It has no meaning other than what it does - it pulls distant galaxies in directions (not predicted) by classic theories which combine theoretical expansion and a theoretical big bang event.

In Space Interaction theory - the CMB (cosmic microwave background) is seen as a projection of the filament structure of the Universe - especially beyond the visible horizon - which stands at about 14 billion light years.  In classic, accepted theory this is due to the Universe being this age from a theoretical big bang event.

The CMB has long been used as the main evidence for a big bang event.   The CMB 3D map is classically (interpreted) as a plotting of hot gases left over from a theoretical big bang event - where the very minute fluctuations in the amount/strength of microwave radiation emitted from an area of the universe - is (interpreted) as being emitted from areas where gases are left over from this theoretical big bang - and are just slightly hotter in certain areas - than in other areas.

However, if visible light erodes down to infrared and then microwave as it loses energy - as it travels billions of light years through the fog of space (gravity, dust, gas, EM fields, ice, and possibly some of what scientists call dark energy) - as it does in Space-Interaction theory - then these small fluctiations in the amount/strength of microwaves in the CMB - would rather be a projection of areas where more (or less) infrared radiation (much of it eroded from light waves/particles) falls down into microwave radiation.   The 3D CMB map in this case, is a representation of the filament structure of the Universe - especially that which lies beyond the visible horizon - and not areas of very minute temperature fluctiations in hot gas left over from a 14 billion year old theoretical big bang event. 

In Space-Interaction theory, the visible horizon (the observable Universe) is at a distance from Earth - which is the average distance where light erodes through the fog of space (dust, gas, ice, gravity, EM fields, wave interference, etc.).   This explains why the most distant galaxies appear to be 'infant' galaxies.  The light we receive from them - is so eroded, that we cannot make out their proper shape.  For instance, the spiral arms of spiral galaxies - would be so eroded they could not be distinguished from that distance.

The red-shift of the most distant visible galaxies would be explained by a combination of the pull of distant galaxy clusters (observed as 'dark flow' in 2008) and the erosion of light waves through the fog of space (Space Interaction theory contends that current optics calculations are not correct - and that light actually erodes at an average rate through the fog of space) - since mass-energy is distributed (fairly evenly) in all directions from Earth.

I contend that this deterioration (combination of losing energy and scatter) of EM radiation - is why we can see 14 billion light years in all directions - due to light erosion through the fog of space - and not because of a theoretical big bang event which supposedly happened 14 billion years ago (why classic theories propose we see 14 billion light years in all directions from Earth).

Why would we not think light erodes over 14 billion light years ?   We accept auto headlights can only penetrate a few hundred yards through fog.  Why would we not think that light also erodes through 14 billion light years - where it encounters dust, gas, ice, gravity, EM fields, wave interference, and etc. ?