Static Universe vs. Big Bang Theory

[Plasma Redshift]

If, hypothetically, it was somehow proven that the red shift seen at great distances was caused by the medium between the distance and the observer, would that be enough to debunk the Big Bang theory (i.e. expanding universe theory)?

Thanks!

I really dislike the term "debunk". A tired light/plasma redshift/static universe theory could potentially offer an "alternative model" that might become more attractive over time, and thereby replace BB theory. I doubt however that a plasma redshift theory would "debunk" all forms of expansion theories, nor would it need to do so.

In recent years plasma redshift (and blueshift) have been observed in the lab:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...30402608000089

Folks like Holushko have actually written C# code to apply 'generic' tired light theories to supernova events. He includes code related to spectral aging as well as code to test signal broadening.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf

Keep in mind that it need not be an 'either/or' proposition. It's possible for some of the redshift to be related to expansion and some of it to be related to plasma redshift. Who knows?

[Reality Check]

I really dislike the term "debunk". A tired light/plasma redshift/static universe theory could potentially offer an "alternative model" that might become more attractive over time, and thereby replace BB theory. I doubt however that a plasma redshift theory would "debunk" all forms of expansion theories, nor would it need to do so.

Tired light (like plasma redshift) theories cannot "debunk" any theories because they are fundamental flawed. Any change in frequency in light means a change in energy. Other than the doppler effect and gravitation redshift, the only way to cause this energy change is scattering. Thus ired light theories predict that distant objects are blurred. They are not. Thus all tired light theories are invalid.
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

Static infinite universe theories fail at the first hurdle - Olbers' paradox.

Static finite universe theories cannot match the evidence for a Big Bang.

The plasma redshift observed in the lab is a laser-induced effect and nothing to do woth cosmological "plasma redshift".

In fact theories never debunk other theories. It is the failure of a theory to match observations that debunks it. It is the failure of the predictions from a theory that debunks it.

[Swift]

Plasma Redshift

Your post (and the single response to it) have been moved from the thread Question about red shift and the Big Bang theory in Q&A. Our rules state that Q&A is only for mainstream answers to questions, and you are clearly advocating a non-mainstream idea.

I very strongly suggest you review The Advice for ATM Idea Advocates and our Rules for posting, particularly rule 13, as you will be held responsible to follow them in what is now your thread. If you are not prepared to do so, that is fine, but you must clearly say so in your next post; the thread will then be closed. If you would like to discuss your idea further, that's great, but please do so only in this thread.

Thanks and welcome to CQ

[SRH]

" The plasma redshift observed in the lab is a laser-induced effect "

How does the laser induce the observed plasma redshift?

Thanks.

[slang]

" The plasma redshift observed in the lab is a laser-induced effect "

How does the laser induce the observed plasma redshift?

Thanks.

TOEfetish, please ask this question in the Q&A forum, doing it here is derailing Plasma Redshift's ATM thread. You can of course link to Reality Check's post or use the quote feature to make clear where your question came from. Thank you.

[tusenfem]

Tired light is flawed for many reasons.
I guess Ned Wright's page would be appropriate here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
And vixra is the crackpot version of arxiv, and hardly a reliable source.

ETA: Oops that is the same as RC put in.

[HenrikOlsen]

What I see as one of the really glaring problems with all "tired light" hypotheses is that they fail to predict the way supernovae are observed to have their early development slowed down by exactly the same amount as their spectrum is shifted, which matches relativistic red shift's predictions perfectly and is in direct contrast to what "tired light" predicts, which is a redshift, but no slow-down.

Quite simply put, "tired light" is observably wrong.

[Plasma Redshift]

Plasma Redshift

Your post (and the single response to it) have been moved from the thread Question about red shift and the Big Bang theory in Q&A. Our rules state that Q&A is only for mainstream answers to questions, and you are clearly advocating a non-mainstream idea.

I very strongly suggest you review The Advice for ATM Idea Advocates and our Rules for posting, particularly rule 13, as you will be held responsible to follow them in what is now your thread. If you are not prepared to do so, that is fine, but you must clearly say so in your next post; the thread will then be closed. If you would like to discuss your idea further, that's great, but please do so only in this thread.

Thanks and welcome to CQ

It would be very helpful for me to fully understand what exactly it is that I said that you feel is "against the mainstream". I effectively answered: No a static universe theory wouldn't necessarily "debunk" mainstream theory. I even expressed my dissatisfaction with the whole debunking mentality that some folks like to engage themselves in. I fail to see how my very first post to this forum was even against the mainstream.

I would not mind responding to some of the comments that folks have made about my post and about plasma redshift, but this particular forum has the feel of a heretic hanging forum that has the express intent of "banning" individuals and belittling non-standard theories. I didn't come here with guns blazing and I have no desire to be put on trial on this forum or this website. I was just interested in some friendly scientific discussions about astronomy in general. If you would like me to continue that kind of conversation, I would be happy to respond to some of the concerns expressed in this thread, and explain how they are/have been dealt with in various plasma redshift models. Admittedly from the handle I selected, I clearly have my own (non-standard) opinions on this topic, but I fail to see the point of having a conversation about this topic if the whole intent is to ban me. What is the purpose of this forum, and why was my first post so "controversial" that it warranted being moved to this forum in the first place?

[Swift]

Admittedly from the handle I selected, I clearly have my own (non-standard) opinions on this topic, but I fail to see the point of having a conversation about this topic if the whole intent is to ban me. What is the purpose of this forum, and why was my first post so "controversial" that it warranted being moved to this forum in the first place?

You admit that your ideas are non-mainstream, and the information I linked to clearly states our policy on such topics. Our rules also clearly state that one does not argue with moderation in-thread, but Reports the post or posts such questions in Feedback. I have no intent to ban you, it is entirely your choice to follow our rules or not, and control whether you are banned or not.

In any case, I'll take your post to mean you do not wish to discuss your idea, by our rules, but want to debate our rules. Given that, this thread is closed. That also means you may not bring up this topic again on CQ.

If you change your mind and wish to actually discuss your idea, Report this post (Black triangle with the ! in the lower left corner) and we will consider reopening the thread.

[Swift]

By request of Plasma Redshift, who wishes to discuss his idea, this thread is reopened.

Have fun,

[Plasma Redshift]

Tired light (like plasma redshift) theories cannot "debunk" any theories because they are fundamental flawed.

I don't even personally care for the term (or the concept) of "debunking" any idea. Like all theories, tired light/plasma redshift theories have strengths and weaknesses.

Any change in frequency in light means a change in energy.

That is pretty much the whole concept behind plasma redshift concepts in general.

Other than the doppler effect and gravitation redshift, the only way to cause this energy change is scattering. Thus ired light theories predict that distant objects are blurred. They are not. Thus all tired light theories are invalid.

There are several other plasma processes that create plasma redshift including the Wolf effect, Stark redshift, etc.

Holushko actually includes separate C# code to "test" the spectral aging characteristics and they do just fine. It probably matters which model of tired light you're talking about.

Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

Your unpublished website seems to begin with an error:

There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.

The loss or gain of momentum is redshift and blueshift respectively. A loss or gain in momentum (redshift or blueshift) won't necessarily cause "blurring". What's up with that error? A number of tired light proponents have pointed out several errors in Ned's claims:

http://stolmarphysics.com/Ned1.htm

Static infinite universe theories fail at the first hurdle - Olbers' paradox.

No, not really:

http://scienceblog.com/35354/olbers-...tead-big-bang/

Static finite universe theories cannot match the evidence for a Big Bang.

I suppose we'll have to deal with your claims one at a time, but I'm sure that some plasma redshift/tired light proponent has dealt with those observations. Which observations specifically do you feel are your "strongest case"?

The plasma redshift observed in the lab is a laser-induced effect and nothing to do woth cosmological "plasma redshift".

How can you already know that? You do realize that there are several plasma redshift mechanisms to choose from, right?

In fact theories never debunk other theories. It is the failure of a theory to match observations that debunks it. It is the failure of the predictions from a theory that debunks it.

I think the the desire to "debunk" an idea is an emotional reaction to an idea one doesn't care for. It's often a "crusade' sort of mentality that has nothing to do with addressing various observations. Admittedly some observations tend to favor one theory over another, but such observations rarely 'debunk' an idea. More often than not, the observation isn't the problem, it's the subjective interpretation of that observation that tends to be problematic. "Debunkers" typically tend to oversimplify the issue for the purposes of "debunking" the idea. In essence, 'debunking' an idea is typically a self fulling prophesy driven by an emotional desire. It's rarely true that the evidence is conclusive in one direction or another, but often folks feel the need to "defend" their own beliefs in a very aggressive manner.

[Plasma Redshift]

" The plasma redshift observed in the lab is a laser-induced effect "

How does the laser induce the observed plasma redshift?

Thanks.

The most common types of redshift that are observed in the lab are Compton scattering, Stark redshift, and the Wolf effect. There are at least three interactions that can lead to redshift.

[Plasma Redshift]

Tired light is flawed for many reasons.

IMO no theory is without "flaws".

I guess Ned Wright's page would be appropriate here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Ned's points have been addressed by more than one tired light proponent. I cited one of them for Reality Check.

Could you explain to me why a loss of momentum would lead to 'blurring'? I don't even understand Ned's first argument since a loss of momentum is simply "redshift". It would take a change in the direction of the photon to cause blurring, not simply a loss of momentum.

[Plasma Redshift]

What I see as one of the really glaring problems with all "tired light" hypotheses is that they fail to predict the way supernovae are observed to have their early development slowed down by exactly the same amount as their spectrum is shifted, which matches relativistic red shift's predictions perfectly and is in direct contrast to what "tired light" predicts, which is a redshift, but no slow-down.

Quite simply put, "tired light" is observably wrong.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

You have touched upon a very important issue and a very important 'prediction' of plasma redshift theories IMO. You're absolutely right that plasma redshift theories tend to predict a delay in higher energy wavelengths compared to lower energy wavelengths. Indeed we are seeing some limited evidence that higher energy gamma rays may travel slower through space than lower energy gamma rays.

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/n....lasso?id=8364

Do you have something to support your assertion that all higher energy photons experience identical travel times?

The plasma redshift 'prediction' of variations in wavelength travel times seems to be a very important "prediction" of most plasma redshift models. Virtually all plasma redshift theories predict time delays based on wavelength.

[Plasma Redshift]

What I see as one of the really glaring problems with all "tired light" hypotheses is that they fail to predict the way supernovae are observed to have their early development slowed down by exactly the same amount as their spectrum is shifted, which matches relativistic red shift's predictions perfectly and is in direct contrast to what "tired light" predicts, which is a redshift, but no slow-down.

Quite simply put, "tired light" is observably wrong.

Keep in mind that despite the title of the thread, it's not necessarily an 'either/or' proposition. Some of the redshift could be related to a Doppler type of expansion, and some of it could be related to plasma redshift and none of it may be related to "expanding space". Likewise, plasma redshift could be due to a combination of factors, including Wolf effects, Compton scattering and Stark redshift. There are many possibilities to select from.

The point you bring up about the variations in these theories as it relates to travel times of various wavelengths, might be very helpful in determining which set of factors might be involved. It seems to me that the jury is still out on the gamma ray questions.

[Cougar]

...none of it may be related to "expanding space".

Are you claiming the universe is static? No expansion, no contraction?

[Plasma Redshift]

Are you claiming the universe is static? No expansion, no contraction?

I suppose that I'm simply suggesting that I don't know for a fact that the universe is expanding, nor can I rule it out. It could be that it is expanding, but it could be that plasma redshift is fully responsible for all the redshift observed from space. It could be a combo deal as well. I simply don't profess to know the outcome yet.

[Bob Angstrom]

I suppose that I'm simply suggesting that I don't know for a fact that the universe is expanding, nor can I rule it out. It could be that it is expanding, but it could be that plasma redshift is fully responsible for all the redshift observed from space. It could be a combo deal as well. I simply don't profess to know the outcome yet.

Any change in space (expansion) would result in a change in our measurements of time and the speed of light making expansion itself a "combo" effect. Another problem is, relative to What? can the universe expand. To say with any certainty that the universe is expanding implies that we have a static unit of measurement in an expanding space.

[korjik]

Any change in space (expansion) would result in a change in our measurements of time and the speed of light making expansion itself a "combo" effect. Another problem is, relative to What? can the universe expand. To say with any certainty that the universe is expanding implies that we have a static unit of measurement in an expanding space.

Its called a meter. It is about half of a tall mans arm spread.

Also, if everything is moving away from you, then the volume of that everything is expanding. Pretty much the definition of expansion actually.

[Plasma Redshift]

Any change in space (expansion) would result in a change in our measurements of time and the speed of light making expansion itself a "combo" effect. Another problem is, relative to What? can the universe expand. To say with any certainty that the universe is expanding implies that we have a static unit of measurement in an expanding space.

I have no problem with the concept of a combination of factors that includes spacetime expansion (objects in motion stay in motion), time dilation factors, and various types of plasma redshift factors. I actually doubt that redshift is as simple as simply selecting one mechanism or one factor. I see no need however for anything called "space" to expand.

[Plasma Redshift]

Expansion of objects into a pure vacuum (or a vacuum that contains some energy) is an easy enough idea to grasp. Obviously that type of expansion process will not work by itself to explain all the redshift observed, but other plasma redshift factors might eliminate any need for space to expand. It could be that plasma redshift is responsible of all of the redshift observed, but without a little more high energy data to go by, it's hard to really which factors are valid scientific options, and which are not.

[Bob Angstrom]

Its called a meter. It is about half of a tall mans arm spread.

Length is necessarily relative and having a officially defined unit of length does not exempt that length from either the local or universal changes that effect all lengths. Since length always implies comparison with a standard of length, our observation that the universe as expanding is only as valid as our ability to define some unit of length as a non-expanding absolute.

Also, if everything is moving away from you, then the volume of that everything is expanding. Pretty much the definition of expansion actually.

The expansion of space should not be confused with the familiar 3-D expansion where objects scatter like ejecta from an explosion into pre-existing space. If space is expanding, it is spacetime itself that is expanding between objects and we can not properly say that the distant objects are “moving away.” Remote galaxies remain unmoved in any direction while the space between then appears to increase in volume.

[Bob Angstrom]

I have no problem with the concept of a combination of factors that includes spacetime expansion (objects in motion stay in motion), time dilation factors, and various types of plasma redshift factors. I actually doubt that redshift is as simple as simply selecting one mechanism or one factor. I see no need however for anything called "space" to expand.

I agree that a combination of factors is possible and even more likely than any single explanation. I also see no need for "space" to expand. The old Zwicky tired light theory has been discredited but it has been replaced in recent years by other viable theories that could be classified as "tired light."

[Tensor]

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

I'll point out that vixra is not considered a valid reference here. Most of the papers there are simply those that can’t get past legitimate peer review. The rest are nothing more crackpot ideas, whose authors think that having their papers put up there somehow gives them legitimacy. After all, it was a bit childish to simply reverse the letters of the actual science depository.

You have touched upon a very important issue and a very important 'prediction' of plasma redshift theories IMO. You're absolutely right that plasma redshift theories tend to predict a delay in higher energy wavelengths compared to lower energy wavelengths. Indeed we are seeing some limited evidence that higher energy gamma rays may travel slower through space than lower energy gamma rays.

You know, it would have been nice to do some actual research and find and read the actual papers (see below).

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/n....lasso?id=8364

From the article:

“Ferenc cautioned that the results need to be repeated with other gamma-ray sources and that a simpler explanation had not been ruled out”

I’ll just point out that the results have not been repeated by any other sources, to match the delay found here. And there are models to explain the different travel times. For example, in the very paper that article you linked to references, there are various other possibilities that are reviewed. And check here for another possibility. I'll leave the research for other models to you.

Do you have something to support your assertion that all higher energy photons experience identical travel times?

Yes, non-identical travel times would require Lorentz invariance violations. Such violations, have been tightly constrained, which also constrains flight time differences of photons of different energies. See here and here for experiments constraining the time delays.

The plasma redshift 'prediction' of variations in wavelength travel times seems to be a very important "prediction" of most plasma redshift models. Virtually all plasma redshift theories predict time delays based on wavelength.

Then by all means, present the actual papers, with the actual mechanisms, with the actual math, with actual predictions, then match them with actual observations (remember the constraints of the time delays). Various this, most that, seems to be, are quite general and are not specific enough.

The plasma redshift observed in the lab is a laser-induced effect and nothing to do woth cosmological "plasma redshift".

How can you already know that?

Because that is what the paper you linked to says and explains? But I'll be more than happy to be shown wrong. Where exactly in the paper does it make any claims about being applicable to a cosmological redshift?

You do realize that there are several plasma redshift mechanisms to choose from, right?

Then why did you link to a paper describing a laser-inducd effect? If you weren't indicating it was a laser-induced effect, then the only reason to introduce the paper was obfuscation, to hide that you really didn't have any actual evidence. Was that your intention? If not, we'll be waiting for your papers describing those “other” mechanisms, from the actual papers, with the actual math, with actual predictions, then match them with actual observations.

Oh, and your question about blurring, it's due to the Compton Effect

[Swift]

I agree that a combination of factors is possible and even more likely than any single explanation. I also see no need for "space" to expand. The old Zwicky tired light theory has been discredited but it has been replaced in recent years by other viable theories that could be classified as "tired light."

Bob Angstrom,

As you well know, ATM is for a single advocate to advocate their non-mainstream idea. If you have your own ideas, you need to do this in your own thread. This will earn you an infraction.

[Nereid]

A belated welcome to CosmoQuest, Plasma Redshift!

I really dislike the term "debunk". A tired light/plasma redshift/static universe theory could potentially offer an "alternative model" that might become more attractive over time, and thereby replace BB theory. I doubt however that a plasma redshift theory would "debunk" all forms of expansion theories, nor would it need to do so.

In recent years plasma redshift (and blueshift) have been observed in the lab:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...30402608000089

Folks like Holushko have actually written C# code to apply 'generic' tired light theories to supernova events. He includes code related to spectral aging as well as code to test signal broadening.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf

Keep in mind that it need not be an 'either/or' proposition. It's possible for some of the redshift to be related to expansion and some of it to be related to plasma redshift. Who knows?

As you probably know, the Hubble distance-redshift relationship has been tested in many ways. One such involves making redshift-independent estimates of the distances to various astronomical objects whose redshifts have been observed, and checking that those distances are consistent with ones derived from the Hubble relationship*. AFAIK, they are.

That leads to this question, about the ATM idea you have proposed: what models have been published, incorporating a plasma redshift mechanism (or perhaps mechanisms), which can be tested the same way (i.e. by deriving the estimated redshift for the various objects, given their observed distances, and showing that they are consistent with the Hubble relationship)? I think particularly severe tests would be ones which included observations of redshift in the x-ray, UV, optical, IR, microwave, and radio regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.

* actually, they're more often used to estimate the value of the Hubble constant, H₀, but the principle is the same

[utesfan100]

Keep in mind that it need not be an 'either/or' proposition. It's possible for some of the redshift to be related to expansion and some of it to be related to plasma redshift. Who knows?

what models have been published, incorporating a plasma redshift mechanism (or perhaps mechanisms), which can be tested the same way (i.e. by deriving the estimated redshift for the various objects, given their observed distances, and showing that they are consistent with the Hubble relationship)? I think particularly severe tests would be ones which included observations of redshift in the x-ray, UV, optical, IR, microwave, and radio regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.

It occurs to me that clusters of distant objects can be examined, and if our models are correct the bounding ellipsoids should not have a bias in the radial direction. It turns out such effects have been discussed in the main stream.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingers_of_God

Does the existing theory have an unaccounted for radial bias of distant objects, and if so how much plasma redshift would be needed to account for it?

[Plasma Redshift]

I'll point out that vixra is not considered a valid reference here. Most of the papers there are simply those that can’t get past legitimate peer review. The rest are nothing more crackpot ideas, whose authors think that having their papers put up there somehow gives them legitimacy. After all, it was a bit childish to simply reverse the letters of the actual science depository.

There are plenty of papers on the topic of plasma redshift to read through on Arxiv as well. In fact, Google Scholar and Arxiv are where I personally found most of the materials that I've read on this topic.

http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:.../0/1/0/all/0/1

There are almost as many plasma redshift variations as there are inflation theories to compare at this point. They all make slightly different, but equally 'testable' predictions. I can't personally choose between them, and I don't advocate any specific mechanism at this point. I like Holushko's approach which is generic by design and quantified by design. I think that offers the best methods to be able to test various ideas on cosmological scales.

You know, it would have been nice to do some actual research and find and read the actual papers (see below).

How would you have any idea how much 'research' I have done into this topic? I see no need to make this conversation personal in any way.

From the article:

“Ferenc cautioned that the results need to be repeated with other gamma-ray sources and that a simpler explanation had not been ruled out”

I don't recall suggesting that any explanation had been ruled out by these observations. I simply suggested that it "hints" at areas that warrant additional research.

I’ll just point out that the results have not been repeated by any other sources, to match the delay found here. And there are models to explain the different travel times. For example, in the very paper that article you linked to references, there are various other possibilities that are reviewed. And check here for another possibility. I'll leave the research for other models to you.

Oh, not to me personally. I have never personally authored any particular plasma redshift theory, but I am highly interested in the topic as my handle would suggest. It's nice to be on the outside looking in because I'm not particularly attached to any idea, in fact I tend to favor a "multiple influences" type of an approach.

Yes, non-identical travel times would require Lorentz invariance violations. Such violations, have been tightly constrained, which also constrains flight time differences of photons of different energies. See here and here for experiments constraining the time delays.

You'll need to be a bit patient. I have a busy week ahead and I'd like to go through your suggested papers before I comment on them. Thanks for the reading material (soft of ).

Then by all means, present the actual papers, with the actual mechanisms, with the actual math, with actual predictions, then match them with actual observations (remember the constraints of the time delays). Various this, most that, seems to be, are quite general and are not specific enough.

The author from the Arxiv links that I cited earlier for you in this response, seems to have gone to great lengths to match his theories to observation. Ashmore seems to have done a bit of work as well in terms of applying Chen's results to his ideas and making some predictions and offering some suggested testing methods. That seems admirable from my perspective, particularly his suggestion of future laboratory tests.

Because that is what the paper you linked to says and explains? But I'll be more than happy to be shown wrong. Where exactly in the paper does it make any claims about being applicable to a cosmological redshift?

Which paper are we talking about and which mechanism are we talking about? I believe the man that discovered the Wolf effect personally applied the idea to events in space. I try to round you up a link a little later. Chen did not attempt to link his work to astronomy in his paper, but Ashmore has taken that work by Chen and he has applied it to astrophysics. There are actually many theorized (and demonstrated) plasma redshift mechanisms to chose from. About the only thing I could state at the moment is that a pure Compton redshift explanation, without any other plasma redshift factors has pretty much been ruled out. Compton scattering might be a minor factor in the overall plasma redshift effect, but it is unlikely to be the full explanation for cosmological redshift IMO.

Then why did you link to a paper describing a laser-inducd effect? If you weren't indicating it was a laser-induced effect, then the only reason to introduce the paper was obfuscation, to hide that you really didn't have any actual evidence. Was that your intention? If not, we'll be waiting for your papers describing those “other” mechanisms, from the actual papers, with the actual math, with actual predictions, then match them with actual observations.

Woah. I'm simply citing various research into the topic of plasma redshift. There are many options to choose from at the moment, just as there are subtle variations of inflation theory to choose from. There isn't necessarily one "agreed upon" mechanism for plasma redshift anymore than there is necessarily one agreed upon variation of inflation theory.

Oh, and your question about blurring, it's due to the Compton Effect

I'd be willing to conceded that it's unlikely that Compton scattering is the major influence in plasma redshift. That's why I said that I favored a combination of influences by the way. As I said I'd even entertain an expansion of objects scenario, but I lack belief that space expands.

[Plasma Redshift]

A belated welcome to CosmoQuest, Plasma Redshift!



As you probably know, the Hubble distance-redshift relationship has been tested in many ways. One such involves making redshift-independent estimates of the distances to various astronomical objects whose redshifts have been observed, and checking that those distances are consistent with ones derived from the Hubble relationship*. AFAIK, they are.

That leads to this question, about the ATM idea you have proposed: what models have been published, incorporating a plasma redshift mechanism (or perhaps mechanisms), which can be tested the same way (i.e. by deriving the estimated redshift for the various objects, given their observed distances, and showing that they are consistent with the Hubble relationship)? I think particularly severe tests would be ones which included observations of redshift in the x-ray, UV, optical, IR, microwave, and radio regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.

* actually, they're more often used to estimate the value of the Hubble constant, H₀, but the principle is the same

I won't bother citing the previous authors I've already cited in this thread, but suffice to say that there are many potential mechanisms to sort through, and I can't personally pick a favorite at the moment. I think Holushko's work offers the greatest promise at the moment because it's quantified and includes C# code to "test" various idea here and there and it provides tools to help narrow down the options. It doesn't account for expansion of objects (Doppler effect) so it lacks the ability to test that potential influence, which is an unfortunate limitation from my perspective, but I can understand why the code was written from a static universe perspective. As I said however, I am personally open to an expansion of objects scenario, however I personally tend to lack belief that space expands. Perhaps that explains why this conversation is located in this particular forum?

[Plasma Redshift]

It occurs to me that clusters of distant objects can be examined, and if our models are correct the bounding ellipsoids should not have a bias in the radial direction. It turns out such effects have been discussed in the main stream.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingers_of_God

Does the existing theory have an unaccounted for radial bias of distant objects, and if so how much plasma redshift would be needed to account for it?

I'm afraid we're reaching the limits of my personal knowledge of the plasma redshift topic. The answer is 'I don't know'. Quite frankly, I personally heard about Chen's lab findings earlier this year, and I wasn't even aware of the Wolf effect, or Stark redshift until fairly recently. Suffice to say I'm not the world's foremost leading expert on this topic, and it is unlikely I will do the topic full justice all by myself, which apparently is a necessary requirement of this forum for some reason.