[non-mod mode]And this rather neatly brings us back to an item that was left open in one or other of the other ATM threads you started - what is a 'quasar'?

If you intend to address challenges to the ATM ideas presented, as presented, concerning the (Hubble) scale of the universe and the universality of the Arp-Narlikar VMH, please say so explicitly.
This, it seems, is circular logic ... please clarify.

Specifically, please show that "some galaxies have been demonstrated to have peculiar internal redshifts" using observational and experimental techniques that have been rigorously shown to be fully consistent with the VMH.

Please also explain what the distance scale of the 'quasar' universe is, using observational and experimental techniques that have been rigorously shown to be fully consistent with the VMH.Reference please.
Please provide a definition of "normal galaxies".

Please show that "the alternatives [upon which the ATM ideas presented in this thread depend] depend on the same ladder steps to derive a real distance unrelated to redshift" using observational and experimental techniques that have been rigorously shown to be fully consistent with the VMH, WSM, LSG, and LET.I do not know if anyone is questioning, or has questioned, your confidence - certainly not me.

However, the explicit purpose of this ATM section of BAUT is to challenge and question ATM ideas, as presented.

In this thread you have presented an ATM idea that seems to depend - inextricably - upon several other ATM ideas, including WSM, LET, LSG, and the VMH. These ATM ideas seem to require a re-write of large parts of the standard physics that is incorporated in the estimation of distances beyond a kpc or so.

Logically, then, a potential weakness in the ATM ideas presented here is the relationship between distance estimates based on standard physics with estimates based on replacing key parts of standard physics with WSM, LET, VMH, and so on. In this set of related posts, I am asking about the extent to which those differences have been investigated and found to be unimportant.
Unless a rigorous demonstration that distance estimates are the same (to within a few percent, perhaps) - using the ATM ideas of WSM, LET, VMH, etc vs using standard physics - it seems all you have is an interesting coincidence ... and that is assuming that "the 128 Mpc" and "geological cycle periods" stand up to appropriate scrutiny (for avoidance of doubt, the very mild challenges these were subject to in earlier ATM threads is nothing compared with what they would be faced with if presented for publication in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal).Indeed.

However, when so many ATM ideas are proposed, it is all but impossible to challenge them effectively, especially when there are so many, potentially fatal, logical inconsistencies and errors to ferret out.

[/non-mod mode]