Hi again, Breammaster. By the phrase "atoms increasing mass as they age" I think you are referring to one of the explanations used in trying to understand how MOND works without doing the homework, namely “fat atoms”. MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) was proposed in
1983 by Mordehai Milgrom as an explanation for the expanding universe long before the theory of Dark Matter originated and evolved into its present form. Milgrom's original point was that the properties of a De Sitter universe (basically Euclidian, or linear geometry) could be modified to reflect Einstein’s space-time explanation by multiplying the Gravitational Constant by the minute amount of a0 ≈ 1.2 x 10^−10 m/second, where a0 is the amount of acceleration that must be applied to Gravitational constant in order to account for things like the flat rotation curves in spiral galaxies and the expansion of the universe at the non-linear rate which has been observed. The number 1.2 x 10^−10 m s^−2 is a number so minuscule it would take a mosquito 2 years to get up to flight speed by using it.
A lot of dither has been blathered over this eensy little number. Milgrom's paper is dense and densely argued. He was no crackpot—good friends with some of the leading lights of astronomy in the 1980s‚ Maarten Schmidt and Scott Tremaine being along them. The all-too ignored heroine of this era, Vera Rubin, quantified the flat rotation curves of galaxies first noticed by Fritz Zwicky in 1939. She leaned in favour of Milgrom's theory. Unfortunately, since then both evidence and new calculations have brought astronomers to favour the lambda cold dark matter theory. This postulates a hitherto unknown and still undetected particle called dark matter, which interacts only gravitationally with the rest of the universe. I hate to say this about the world of professional astronomers, but it is very clubby and more than a little don't-rock-the-boat in matters of group consensus. Dark matter is in and MOND is out. Lord knows how that one will end up, because the example of the discipline of geology is rife with stories of theories discredited by The Club going on to prove true—the spreading seafloor and tectonic theory, and extinction of dinosaurs by the Chixulub meteor 6 million years ago being but two examples.
I suggest that before you get too enamoured of notions like atoms mysteriously gaining mass with age (where from and how?) or tired light (bye-bye 100 years of quantum mechanics theory and everything we know about the electromagnetic spectrum), you might brush up on the MOND -vs- CDM difference in the
Wiki article about MOND. It is as even-handed as any I've read. Milgrom himself was a very respected professional whose idea was good at the time but has yet to explain more recent evidence.
Unfortunately, a number of MOND proponents are very poor representatives of his theory. Some use selective evidence, others skew their results by stating that their evidence is defined within the framework of Euclidian mechanics, and that their evidence proves that Euclidian mechanics is true—a tautology, and in this day and age! Oh dear. The Lerner paper you cited is a mangled edit of paper in the May 2014 issue of International Journal of Modern Physics D, May 2014, Vol. 23, No. 06 by Eric Lerner, Renato Falomo, and Riccardo Scarpa in May, 2014, “
UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local universe to z ~ 5” That paper is unquestionably the worst astronomy paper I have ever come across, and believe me, there are more than a few real stinkers out there. I was so pissed off by the bad astronomy the Lerner paper represents that I got seven pages into a point-by-point refutation before I said, "Whoa" and threw the whole thing into the rubbish tip. Along with the Lerner paper, where it belongs.
Beware glib phrases lie "tired light" and "fat atoms". They are products of uninformed minds which are also too lazy to look things up.
Hope this helps,
=Dana in S Africa