*sigh*
No, the claims of Arp about associations of quasars at large red shifts and galaxies at lower red shifts has not stood up to better data. The old photographic plates had a tendency to 'smear'. With better resolution, those 'links' disappear.
And no, tired light is still not a viable theory. The hoopla recently was from a paper that tried to fit a limited amount of data to a modified tired light model. But it ignored a LOT of evidence from other sources that support the age of around 14 billion years (including from the background radiation).
And no, it is NOT possible that the universe (or even the Earth) is only 6000 year old. The red shift measurements are completely irrelevant for objects closer than a few tens of millions of light years. And we have very good evidence that the Large Magellanic cloud is 162,000 light years away and that light took 162,000 years to reach us from there. A supernova that we first saw in 1987 has been used to demonstrate that.
Sorry, but these are primarily crank theories that have very little basis in the evidence. The basic Big Bang scenario, and even the LCDM scenario are quite well supported, even by JWST. What we are learning a great deal about is early galaxy evolution, which we understood very poorly before.
