"Pointing to the sky"? You do realize that, depending how you mean it, you're either dismissing a bunch of evidence or haven't specified anything that is of any gain?
We cannot tell based upon pure observation alone what the actual "cause" of photon redshift might be. I'm happy with you/anyone using object movement to explain some of that redshift because I know objects can move. GR only defines "spacetime", not 'space'. Space isn't even physically defined, and nobody can explain exactly "what" might be expanding in 'space'. It sounds a lot like an aether theory by the way.
"Absence all mass"? Could you explain what you mean?
According to Lambda-CDM theory, the reason that "space expansion" never happens in a lab on Earth is due to the gravitational influences of the planet and other objects that supposedly "overwhelm" any "space expansion". In other words, the gravity of the objects and the mass of those objects prevents space from expanding in our region of "space". Our galaxy doesn't "expand". Our solar system doesn't expand. My waistline does seem to expand on occasion but it has nothing to do with "space expansion" I'm afraid.
Spacetime isn't really "empty" as astronomers imagine. It's quite literally "filled" with plasma. What they are calling "dark matter" is simply plasma, or at least it's 99% plasma with some "dust" sprinkled around here and there. There isn't actually anywhere in "spacetime" that is so "empty" and devoid of matter that it would experience anything like an expansion of 'space' either. The mass of the plasma alone would overwhelm everything, everywhere in a plasma universe.
Verification has no meaning whether they've been made up or not (either that or you've changed what you mean with "made up").
I don't have to know anything about a math formula to experience gravity personally. It has a direct effect upon me as I sit here typing away. Whether you wish to use GR theory to mathematically express that feeling of gravity that I feel every moment of every day, or use Newton's maths to express it, I have no doubt whatsoever that gravity exists. The falsification of Newton's maths (replaced by GR) doesn't falsify the existence of "gravity". That simply falsifies (or simply replaces) a more limited mathematical expression of gravity and replaces it with another. If someday QM replaces GR to express gravity via gravitons, etc, gravity itself will have not changed one iota due to the falsification of GR. Math is actually "trivial" in terms of being able to personally experience gravity. I don't really care how you go about expressing the math for the most part because I know for a fact that gravity exists due to *personal experience*. The math might be "made up", but gravity itself is not. It certainly is 'real' and it has a tangible effect on me.
I don't get why you would mention limits or freedom given that. It doesn't fill any purpose I can conceive of, unless it's to spout text.
There is a fundamental difference between Lambda-CDM and EU theory. EU theory cannot violate known laws of physics. It doesn't need to for starters. That does however impose some actual "limits", particular as it relates to object expansion, which do not exist in Lambda-CDM. The truth of the matter is that Lambda-CDM can be "tweaked" to do just about anything *except* explain a static universe. It can expand at any rate. It's a bit like a "dad" concept because it has a "different state past" during the inflation phase. M-theory is even *more* malleable. It could probably explain a static universe as well, although it would probably have to ditch the dark energy.
PC theory takes longer to "figure out" because nobody is just "making up" new rules of nature to suit themselves. The "explanations" have to be "real" and tangible explanations that actually 'explain' the physical process of photon redshift. It's not like PC theory can simply "stuff in metaphysics" to replace human ignorance. It actually requires someone "figure it out" and not use placeholder terms for human ignorance.
Right now I'm more interested in what the scattering would result in over astronomical distances.
Any type of scattering close to the source, or even "far away" from Earth isn't going to result in "blurring" as much as it's going to result in the loss of light. Photons are simply going to be scattered into the plasmas and ultimately absorbed by them. Eventually some of that energy gets released again at a lower energy wavelength.
That's why the universe is twice as bright as astronomers expected. They treat the IGM as a "vacuum" when in fact it's actually a "thin plasma" that is absorbing and scattering photons galore. That causes us to underestimate the brightness and therefore the mass of virtually every galaxy.
The trouble is that they don't, those matters are (not to mention that the information is given from a, to me, dubious source) far beyond my capabilities.
In terms of your "feelings" about the source of information, I'm afraid there isn't a lot I can personally do about your feelings other than to take your advice and listen to other people's advice when it makes sense. I can try to respect your feelings and other people's feelings, but I can't really change them instantly or easily. That's mostly due to the fact that I'm supporting a minority position on a topic related to "science".
In terms of the information, IMO it's a bit of cop out to claim it's actually beyond your capabilities to judge the merits of one idea over another (plasma redshift vs. dark energy). One idea shows up in the lab. The other does not. One idea is congruent with plasma physics. The other isn't. One idea requires that space be nearly a "perfect vacuum" somewhere out there in distant space. The other theory requires no 'special' locations in spacetime. One concept quite literally requires a 'different state past' (inflation), the other doesn't.
I don't believe it takes 'special' knowledge to make such a decision quite frankly.
The redshift and scattering is a much easier concept to imagine and I don't think it's something that's scalable with only plasma concentration.
Any "real" physical concept is "easier to imagine". Concepts like dark energy, expanding space, inflation etc aren't easy to conceptually wrap one's head around. IMO that's just another strike again Lambda-CDM. It's overly complicated, and it uses a "toy" version of plasma physics.
Have they recorded how much of the light was scattered, along with at what distance it was scattered and at what angle?
I'll have to revisit Holushko's code to see if it records scattering angles (I don't think so), but it does account for how much light is 'scattered' or lost due to scattering.
If it is reducing, and must be reduced, to plasma physics, why are you complaining?
I'm complaining because it hasn't been reduced yet.
That would be a direct example of how they're not attached to the notion.
Oh, I think they've gotten the message from the LHC results that they need a "new approach" in terms of accounting for that 'missing mass'. They aren't however about to budge yet on the dark energy aspect of their theory, even though they can both be replace with "full" versions of plasma physics, one that accounts for plasma redshift and pulse/signal broadening.
It cannot be an expansion without something to counteract it if there's an infinite amount of time. Sorry, that's it.
It can expand at times, contract during other phases, etc. PC theory is not limited to *one* directional movement in fact. Just because the mainstream uses a one directional model doesn't mean it must work that way in a PC model.
That last sentence is a good example of your predetermined notion.
In real labs there are real limits on real objects of mass. It's not like I'm personally "predetermining" anything that hasn't been tested a million times over.
I wouldn't know. I don't trust your assertion for it either.
Fortunately you don't have to take my word for it as it relates to SUSY theory. There are many articles out explaining where things stand at the moment. There is no evidence for SUSY theory, and several 'simple' versions have already been tested at LHC and failed.
Not just me by the way. Even Hubble himself realized that there were at least *two* solutions to the redshift problem. The mainstream has become arrogant and complacent over the years and they attempt to ignore the other options. The problem is that the lab evidence is piling up in favor of the *other* option that Hubble discussed!