None of what Ive studied is beyond my knowledge of physics.<quoted text>
As I said before I think this is a bit beyond both yours and my knowledge of physics but I think you are making two obvious errors.
The first is that you are accepting the idea that this relatively small number of anomalous observations have been reasonably verified as actual redshifts due to something other than recessional motion. Recent data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey indicate no redshift anomalies which cannot be accounted for by normal phenomena associated with the large-scale structure of the cosmos.
The second problem is that you seem to dismiss out of hand the tens of thousands of observations of redshifts which are in complete agreement with Hubbles Law. Although only one verified anomalous observation would indicate that recessional motion is not the only cause of redshift it would not completely negate the fact the recessional motion of objects is positively known to cause redshift.
This statement tens of thousands of redshifts in agreement with Hubbles law violates the Black Swan principle & falsifiability. There are millions of white swans but how many does it take to prove that not all swans are white. ONE, numero uno.
So how many contradictory observations (i.e. if correct the theory is false) does it take to overturn any, including Hubbles Law: ONE. Yet there are nearly 400 and you still cling on. Isn't this worse than dogmatism & a bit Comical Ali like?
Discordance is observed with not just one but different kinds of observations, different telescopes & by researchers in different continents. They include:
1. Redshift overlapping with low Redshift Object -
2. Optical High bridges
3. Radio bridges
4. X-ray bridges
5. Quantized redshifts
6. Redshift mismatch in a galaxy group
7. Pair alignment
8. Line alignment
Hubbles Law is dead. Its never been verified. The observations that led to its development were misinterpreted. Hubble himself warned against this. The universe is not expanding & it's all been a big mistake, an honest mistake yes but a mistake alright.
You like using quotes & heres one,A proof is that which convinces a reasonable man; a rigorous proof is that which convinces an unreasonable man.-Mark Kac (mathematician).
We now have more than rigorous proof, what will it take to convince you?