...because you are much more sensible than most of the other people on this board. Your lack of knowledge of the data is really hurting your theory, however. I don't think you understood my objections, so I'll move on to your predictions.
"This model predicts that if a quasar appears then there is a higher probability that another quasar will appear or has appeared close to it recently."
We have already determined that quasars are randomly distributed on the sky.
"Images in a string will have similar properties as if the images were taken from a continuous movie at equal time durations. "
I don't think anything like this has been observed. Galaxies near each other are no more similar than those at great distances.
"Images initiated at the maximum expansion of the galaxy will have the greatest red shift."
The highest-redshift object currently known is a quasar.
"Galaxies will appear to have impossible structures due to image distortions."
Not to my knowledge.
"This model predicts the age of the universe will be less then half of the age required for a flat space universe."
This could be problematic for the existence of life. If all these violent activities we're seeing in the sky (e.g. jets, gamma-ray bursts, starbursts) were happening in our own galaxy, life would have been wiped out long ago.
"The flat space mass density calculations used to determine if a flat space model is close can not be used on this model because the assumptions
used in the flat space model are inconsistent with the structure of the curved space model. "
Are you saying GR can't be used?
I don't see any new predictions here. For anybody to believe you, you'll need to predict some up and coming results. For example, what will the gravitational radiation detectors see? What will the MAP results be?
You have what I would call a many-parameter model, one that could be used to explain almost anything if tweaked finely enough. You'll have to go beyond re-explaining observed data if you don't want to be ignored.