Thanks a lot. This is exactly the keyword I was looking for.

Large amounts of scattering of this hypothetical sort would tend to broaden spectral lines of distant objects.  Also, the density of hypothetical scatterers would need to be very uniform to preserve the redshift distance relationship. I could go on.  I believe that there are serious issues with experiment at this point.

There is also an opacity issue, namely if light is scattered a great deal distant point objects become fuzzy.  40 years ago there was a radio telescope interferometric study of a quasar, using telescopes all across the earth and atomic clocks.  Looking at an object across the universe, the source was identified as a point roughly the size of iirc Manhattan island. This resolution implies a limit on how much scattering occurred.

There is also an issue that the amount of scattering would depend, cf. Rayleigh, on light frequency, so blue spectral lines would not be shifted the same as red spectral lines.  This issue was studied very carefully 40 years ago, when the issue was time dependence of natural constants, and there is no such relative displacement.

See our paper " Expansion of the Universe-Mistake of Edwin Hubble. Cosmological Redshift and Related Electromagnetic Phenomena in Static Lobachevskian (hyperbolic) Universe, Acta Physica Polonica 9 vol30 ,2008, This paper is also posted on Research Gate.

See also other our papers where redshift is explained.

See the paper ' Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles ', Galilean Electrodynamics. 01/2012; 23(1):3, in which New Particles are reason for red shift and and loss of photon energy in space. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236135235_Cosmic_Red_Shift_Microwave_Background_and_New_Particles

Article Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles

@George Phillies: I know all the objections you listed. Considering visual light, some are simply wrong, others do not convince me. The main reason is, that most people believe that "scattering of energy" includes always a change in direction of the light. That is true only for high energies (hf>100 eV), when the photon energy is comparable with the rest mass of the electron. Only then apply the statements of the compton effect that you mentioned.

You will find some of my arguments here https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_anyone_help_with_the_transfer_of_momentum_by_photon_scattering?_tpcectx=qa_overview_following&_trid=53fc6eb0cf57d7555f8b465e_

and here

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265013965_The_Size_and_Energy_Loss_of_a_Wave_Packet?ev=prf_pub

Article The Size and Energy Loss of a Wave Packet

Anybody who wants to explain cosmological redshift must show that his model :

1. Shifts uniformly the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

2.Preserves wavelength ratios.

3.Is scale invariant.( expressed in dimensionless units).

4 .Is monotonically increasing function of distance.

5. For "small" distances  it must  give the linear function found experimentally by Hubble.

This is exactly done in our works, ( see our publications on this subject) All "explanations" which do not comply with those requirements are just garbage and not need to be read at all. Regards.

J.G. von Brzeski

.

This is exactly done in my work, too. All these five criteria are satisfied by my result

Intergalactic space to a high degree  empty while your model requires presence of matter. Since light passes  through different region of matter density, redshift it can not not have the desired properties listed in 1-5.

You are surely wrong: The universe is filled with neutral gas and plasma. Every plasma contains free electrons. There is no need that the plasma density is uniform. Radio astronomers receive the very regular signals from distant pulsars and calculate the mean density of gas clouds. Read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar#Probes_of_the_interstellar_medium

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_measure#Dispersion_in_pulsar_timing

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H_II_region

By the way: I prefer to explain redshift with standard physics and not with unproven geometry.

Lobachevskian (hyperbolic) geometry is known since circa 150 years.E.g. Einsteins's Special Relativity is in fact physical  interpretation of  Lobachaevskian geometry. Ignorance of hyperbolic geometry is widespread among physicists and astronomers and is a source of several misconceptions including originn of the redshift .and CMB.

Euclidaen geometry is a zero curvature limit of Lobachevskian geometry. So better take any book on the subject of hyperbolic geometry and please do not tell such a  BS which is quite ridiculous. to read and disqualify you as a scientist. .

Papers which make dozens  assumptions to get somewhere  are generally wrong and do not represent any law of nature. People with poor mathematics abilities do pseudo physics which explain nothing and only makes the noise.

Thank you very much. Surely you are the best expert around.

Not on breeding a race horses, but on cosmological redshift I am the only expert. You are correct at this point.  Unfortunately a camel in order to drink some water has to come to the source. Not all camels understand that. By the way, was machen Sie in Fachhochschule ?

"The main reason is, that most people believe that "scattering of energy" includes always a change in direction of the light. That is true only for high energies (hf>100 eV), when the photon energy is comparable with the rest mass of the electron."

If there is no change in direction of the photon, there is no transfer of momentum to the scattering thing, no change in the energy of the scattering thing, and therefore no change in the energy of the photon.  Not only is this a freshman physics problem as freshman physics is taught at good universities, but it is a problem I actually worked as a freshman.  If your claim is correct, the law of conservation of momentum is wrong.