In 1929, Edwin Hubble formulated the law that the velocity of a receding galaxy is proportional to its distance to the Earth. Hubble based his law on Doppler’s effect whereby the wavelength of light from the galaxy is redshift if the galaxy is moving away from us. Hubble found that most galaxies exhibit such a redshift — and that the redshift was greater for the more distant galaxies from which he deduced the Universe is expanding. By measuring the redshift of known spectral lines, Hubble claimed to know the recession velocity of the galaxy relative to the Earth.
Today, astronomers based on the redshift of SN explosions take Hubble’s law as proof the Universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating. SN stands for supernovae. Indeed, the 2011 Nobel prize in physics was awarded based on calculations showing accelerated Universe expansion. If, however, the SN redshift has a non-Doppler origin, the Universe need not be expanding, let alone accelerating. Redshift without Universe expansion is of utmost importance because many of the outstanding problems in cosmology would be simply resolved by Newtonian mechanics.
Nevertheless, the standard view of cosmology is the Universe is expanding based on the Doppler interpretation of Hubble's redshift measurements. However, Christof Wetterich, a theoretical physicist at the University of Heidelberg recently proposed  an alternative cosmology of a Universe without expansion as depicted in the thumbnail. Instead of Doppler’s effect, Wetterich hypothesized the Hubble redshift is caused by mass of the atoms in the Universe getting heavier. Because the speed of light is finite, when we look at distant galaxies we are looking backwards in time — seeing them, as they would have been when they emitted the light that we observe. If all masses were once lower, and had been constantly increasing, the colors of old galaxies would be redshift relative to current frequencies, and the amount of redshift would be proportionate to their distances from Earth. Thus, the redshift would make galaxies seem to be receding even if they were not. See e.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Mass can be only measured in comparison to a reference, say at the official kilogram at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. But if the mass of everything — including the official kilogram — has been growing proportionally over time, the redshift theory based on a heavier Universe can never be proven, and therefore is unlikely to ever be accepted by Science.
The heavier Universe redshift theory as an alternative to an expanding Universe is not new. Since 1929, many alternatives  to the Doppler theory of redshift have been proposed. Of the numerous alternatives to the Doppler’s effect, the absorption of galaxy light by NPs of cosmic dust is most likely. NP stands for nanoparticle. Like atmospheric dust obscuring observations of what we perceive on Earth, our optical observations of the Universe are distorted by cosmic dust comprising NPs of mostly silica that permeate the vast reaches of the Universe.
QED Induced Redshift
Upon absorption in NPs, the galaxy light is redshift by the mechanismof QED induced EM radiation QED stands for quantum electrodynamics and EM for electromagnetic. QED induced redshift treats the absorbed photon as EM energy confined within the NP by TIR. TIR stands for total internal reflection. TIR confinement is a consequence of the submicron NPs having high surface to volume ratios, and therefore the absorption of the galaxy photon is almost entirely confined to the NP surface corresponding its TIR mode. Since quantum mechanics precludes conservation of the absorbed galaxy photon by an increase in NP temperature, conservation proceeds by the QED induced creation of a redshift photon depending on the NP material and geometry. See http://www.nanoqed.org at “Cosmic Dust in an expanding Universe?,” 2014.
1. Experimental Verification
Unlike redshift caused by heavy atoms, the QED redshift mechanism of galaxy light is already proven, say the redshift of the Lyman-alpha UV photon first measured by Hubble. However, the known QED redshift of UV to the VIS in dust is treated as a correction  to observations instead of what it actually is – a denial of the Doppler shift and proof of a Universe without expansion.
2. Accelerating Expanding Universe
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was awarded to Perlmutter, Schmidt and Riess for discovering the accelerated expansion of the Universe based on SN explosions. See http://www.prlog.org/
Riess commenting on his calculations of SN explosions shortly after being told he co-shared the Nobel Prize said:
"I remember thinking, I've made a terrible mistake and I have to find this mistake."
Reiss did make a mistake. The redshift used in his calculations had nothing to do with the weaker light than expected from the SN, but rather was that of QED induced redshift from the cosmic dust created in the SN explosions. Simply put, the dust from the SN explosion made the light appear to be redshift more than expected.
2. The QED induced redshift mechanism is proven. QED redshift is caused solely by the absorption of the galaxy photon in NPs. Given that galaxy and SN light is unequivocally absorbed by NPs on its way to the Earth, the Hubble redshift is unlikely related to an expanding Universe. Moreover, an accelerating Universe expansion based on SN explosions is unphysical.
3. NPs hold in question the Hubble redshift as proof the Universe began in the Big Bang suggesting the notion once proposed by Einstein of a static Universe in dynamic equilibrium is a far more credible cosmology.
4. Other consequences of QED redshift are:
Dark Energy not needed to explain a Universe that is not expanding
Period-luminosity relation qualified in Cepheid stars
Dark Matter not involved in Gravitational Lensing
Galaxy Rotation Problem resolved without Dark Matter
No need for MOND to explain Galaxy Rotation Problem
Tolman Surface Brightness reduction by (1 + Z)
Explain the Independence of Redshift in Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect
 C. Wetterich, “Universe without expansion,” arXiv:1303.6878v3 [astro-ph.CO]
 L. Marmet, “On the Interpretation of Red-Shifts: A Quantitative Comparison of Red-Shift Mechanisms,”
 V. Buat, et al., "GOODS-Herschel: