By accident, I just found this link to an old paper on tired light (y'all know i luv tired light - sorry spent time this summer in Alabama)
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1986ApJ...301..544L&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=43cbd8cf4e25584
Its an old paper '86 but published in a respected journal. What went wrong? Observations haven't changed much. Granted the broadening of supernovae light curves has come on the scene (wrongly described as 'time dilation' which puts one models interpretation on the data - bad science, the curves take longer to die away, in tired light it is pulse broadening, in BB it is 'time dilation) but it does not change these results. Why is tired light an outcast.
happy new year to those who use the Gregorian Calendar
Lyndon