Keeping in mind the redshift/distance relationship correlates well with changes we see in the morphology of increasingly dimmer galaxies, and that supernovae seen further and further out also correlates along with a relationship between angular size and areal brightness, I'm calling BS on the OP.
The Hubble Space Telescope has dramatically increased the 'depth' we can probe the universe out to, and nothing seen in the original Hubble Deep Field and the subsequent 'ultra' Deep Field has contradicted anything Humason, Hubble etal worked out decades ago.
Astronomers can also gain 'depth' by utilizing intervening galaxies to enlarge detail and brightness of vastly more distant objects too, nothing in those observations suggests the OP is on to anything significant.
The Hubble Space Telescope has dramatically increased the 'depth' we can probe the universe out to, and nothing seen in the original Hubble Deep Field and the subsequent 'ultra' Deep Field has contradicted anything Humason, Hubble etal worked out decades ago.
Astronomers can also gain 'depth' by utilizing intervening galaxies to enlarge detail and brightness of vastly more distant objects too, nothing in those observations suggests the OP is on to anything significant.
