[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

cept quasars, we're arp points that this applies.

I was referring to Narlikar's ideas which is not quaser specific.

hmm not with ya there... Large scale structures have been discovered.... where it gets better, is it takes ALOT longer than the time available with BBT to form these structures.... and we haven't even mapped them all yet

Isotropy is based on the entire visible Universe. The structures you refer to represent distances that are a small percentage of the size of the visible Universe. The smaller the distance the less the Universe appears to be isotropic.

Dr Wright's critiques have been plaged by errors... here's a critique on one of his erroneous critiques which highlights his misunderstandings on this topic.

You can't have it both ways. By slipping plasma cosmology into the discussion contradicts Narlikar. Narlikar uses a conformal gravity theory.

Redshift = velocity/distance is the dominant method we use for BBT.

If intrinsic redshift does indeed exist, then we can no longer rely solely on this for our models... the quasar aint there, its here... It would also solve the surface brightness dilemma.

The cosmological redshift only applies in BBT where gravity is not dominant. For example in galaxy clusters there is a Doppler component (even in the transverse case) superimposed on the cosmological redshift.
A Doppler component can produce what appears to be discrepancies in the redshift data.

Regards

Steven