Quote me doing so, and I'll retract.
Well, this was one comment that came to mind:
As I read it again however, it might just be a kind of handwavy argument devoid any published support I could actually respond to.
Perhaps the papers published in the course of research into astronomical phenomena made it obvious. If a hypothesis has a low ranking it's quite likely to be falsified by work on higher ranked hypotheses before it ever gets to be tested itself. But that's just my speculation.
The problem is that whenever I ask to see such research, I never get it. I get a link to Ned Wright's unpublished website instead, consistently I might add. If the material actually exists, nobody has ever cited it for me that I can recall. I vaguely remember one paper on a very obscure topic involving tons of questionable assumptions, but it certainly wasn't definitive by any stretch of the imagination.
The thing about 'ranking' hypotheses is that the "ranking" tends to be rather subjective in my experience. How can it be that a *known and demonstrated* cause of redshift is ranked lower than a so called 'explanation' involving three different metaphysical claims? That seems more than a tad arbitrary.
The 'burden of proof' is on you. The static universe was once (a long time ago) the mainstream model and the tired light idea was taken seriously.
As far as I know, of 'mainstream' astronomers only Fritz Zwicky and Edwin Hubble ever took it seriously enough to publish papers on the topic or that referred to tired light as a probable solution. The "big bang" concept got most of the attention. I presume it might be related to the fact that a creation story is attractive, it was written by a Priest, and it had the Pope's seal of approval.
They were both rejected by the expert community because they failed to match some unexpected observations.
Like what?
Search | arXiv e-print repository
Search | arXiv e-print repository
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/96/meta
Further observations since then have consolidated a quite different model. That was one of Kuhn's paradigm changes.
That was really more of a popularity "choice" as far as I can tell, certainly not a 'scientific' one involving any sort of preference for laboratory demonstrated processes.
If the published papers supporting the models you prefer have any credibility, they'll have a chance of being re-examined if the mainstream model fails catastrophically; but even if those unlikely events occur, according to Kuhn, it's unlikely to happen for another generation - and given the number of generations already passed since they were rejected, I don't rate the chances.
I could be dead by the time the mainstream gets around to reading or responding to any tired light models, or any of Lerner's work. I therefore have to have my own preferences that aren't limited by "popularity".
I don't have to. The mainstream expert community have already rejected those ideas as unworkable.
Yet you've been unable to cite even a single paper written in the last 4 decades that explains why it's been rejected. Even Zwicky's published paper didn't reject the tired light model, he simply made up his own tired light model that he preferred over Compton scattering.