More playing around with tired light theory:
Okay if we take Raman scattering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scattering
) we essentially have the basics of physics we need for tired light.
Now we need to put Raman on steroids so we don't get approximately 1 in 10 million photons we need almost all do it so it matches our observation.
My initial thought was to argue well the light has come a long way so perhaps it just tells us no photon can get to us without undergoing such a transition because chances are it encounters such a transition on the way.
My problem with this conjecture is we have galaxies which are the same distance away with vastly different redshifts. This leads us to a sticky problem of then trying to make space paths from these galaxies not homogenous.
This is essentially one of the same arguements used to dismiss tired light as quoted by Halton Arp
Over the years, many people have argued that photons lose energy on their long voyage through space. This is an entirely reasonable idea, since the distances are the largest we have experience with. But there are several observational arguments that persuade me that this is not an important part of cosmic redshifts:
The first is that as we look to lower galactic latitudes in our own galaxy, we see objects through an increasing density of gas and dust until they are almost totally obscured. No increase of redshift has ever been demonstrated for objects seen through this increased amount of material. Secondly, we have seen that if we look through extragalactic space, the example of quasars linked to low-redshift galaxies demonstrates that two objects at the same distance with closely the same path length can have vastly different redshifts.
Finally, if we say there are clouds of a redshifting medium around each individual object, then there should be gradients of redshift across resolved objects, which are not observed. Further, we should see silhouetting effects between adjacent objects, which also are not observed. Perhaps on some level, light can get tired, but it does not appear to be significant in the redshifts we are dealing with.
My next thoughts were in reading on Raman scattering that there is very big differences between Raman scattering and fluorescence. That leads you into a big distinction in that Raman scattering is a coherent process, whereas fluorescence is not. That lead me into Raman Spectroscopy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_spectroscopy
This is where I ran into real trouble because the Hubble telescope is very very sensitive. My next problem is the hubble data has been analysed for Raman Spectrum lines as well as doppler redshift.
then followed by Venus, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus.
This shows they can isolate an see the two effects on top of the same data.
Now I really am getting stuck.
Thoughts anyone .... or have I reached the end ???