That's a very important point. You get out a certain distance and parameters of objects are completely tied to the interpretation that redshift is a reliable distance indicator.

However, there are ways of dealing with it. Within 150 Mpc, there are tremendous amounts of data for calculating distances via the Tully-Fisher relation. Here is one attempt to deal with the messiness created by intrinsic redshifts.

Hi Gullible Jones and Drugs23

The correlation of red shift to observation of physical objects is not that neat i.e. red shift = distance, when considering BB evolution of the universe.

The image size of a quasar, (or galaxy) expands with the expansion of space-time, based upon the assumptions of BB expansion.

Since Quasars can be compared to each other based upon energy variations, the relative sizes of these quasars seem to fall with in a specific range, a few light years across.

The observed size of a quasar should correlate to distance and thus red shift, by adjusting for the expansion and rate of expansion (which is historically called the “deceleration parameter q) . This means that for some quasars with red shifts greater than 3, the image size would actually increase in size at a faster rate than the image size would be reduced by being further away.

The problem is that observation does not correlate to theoretical expectations. The image size of a “close” quasar with a red shift of .5 is only 2 times bigger than a distant quasar with a red shift of 5, There is no evidence of the image size actually getting bigger with a z above a certain point. The image size, when compared to z is basically flat.

This presents a problem not only for BB but also SS theories since the observed image size does not conform to either model as presently described. BB predicts that the image size of quasars should be getting noticeably bigger with a z of 5 and SS predicts that quasars should be noticeably smaller if it has a z of 5. This is not observed. The curve is way too flat for either model.


Snowflake.

Either model can entertain this dilemma if they accept some of the redshifting as intrinsic - . In fact, this would be one method, if you assume a SS model, to determine how much of the quasar redshifting is intrinsic: Simply adjust the mean intrinsic parameter until the mean size is the same...oh, yeah, it is a little hard to determine the size of quasars, but you could get a ballpark number.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

DE changes everything, including cycling !
Lance Armstrong, the super star of Tour de France has many enemies.
Greg Lemond, a former star of TF, suggests that Armstrong's invincibility is due to doping ...
Trouble is , all tests were negative.

Thesre is another explanation:
Armstrong may get some dark energy from a remote galaxy !
why not !

__________________
Knowledge is Success ...............

Oh, pul-lease, Flakey! Do you not realize that at higher redshifts, the image size of a quasar will increase less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000001%??? Such an effect is not even close to being significant.

Ay, chihuahua! I think you better run those figures through your abacus once again!

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.