
It's no trick. I've shown that the variation of grating intervals
exactly amounts to a continuously changing time scale of the receiver.
The receiver's physical scale is not expressly represented in standard
relativistic notation  Einstein's notion of scale was based on
thinking of space as the possible set of extensions or relocations of
an object (see "The Meaning of Relativity", chapter 1, first few
pages), and he didn't, evidently, think too much of the measuring
instruments except as being absolutely constant for the scope of
observations at hand. Attention to instrument effects and error from
the observational process itself only came later with Heisenberg's
principle and quantum theory. What I've pointed out is that the
spectrum analysis process needs to be considered further for systematic
errors.
To make a fair comparison with relativistic theory, you'd need to
represent the receiver (or spectrometer)'s physical scale expressly in
the FRW metrics  I did that exercise some years ago and showed that
the correction in fact amounts to hitherto unobvious additional terms
in the equations of the metric representing the first order rate of
change effects.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quantph/0005014 .
These first order effects happen to be proportional to the source
distances, whereas our notions of photons doesn't allow for such
information except in more obvious ways like 1/r^2 attenuation and
simple parallax, so the big question was where's this source distance
information coming from. The needed theoretical breakthrough in 2004
was that it lies in the spectral phase gradients of all real signals.
This has been peer reviewed by and is being field verified,
appropriately, by signals folks, as mentioned. The carrot for us
signalstypes is that it would, if found workable, allow us to overcome
Shannon's bounds on channel capacities in ways unimaginable before, and
other good stuff, including, per my calculations, realizable separation
of radio signals with precisions of a few metres without depending on
modulation at all!
So whether the effect really does exist  the equations being damningly
hard to avoid (to many very top radar/signals eyes in this country) 
is a moot question for all of us, and whether it does the trick for
Type 1a SNe is somewhat of an academic question given the terrestrial
applications. My object in publicising this here is to hopefully
motivate verification from the astro field (I'm already doing this in
the general physics at the APS), given that we seem to have gone
through signals and radar perspectives.
[Incidently, re: the Type 1a SNe, I had informally predicted the
Lambda, and the specific value of q, to several of my colleagues at IBM
including the late Landauer in ca. 199596 based on a hunch of this
problem, but none of those I knew knew where to look for tests of the
hunch. So the 1998 discoveries got me revisiting this favourite
spectrometric problem of mine from my undergrad (7782) days. I was
fortunate to then get a very good mentor within IBM to look at the Type
1a SNe time dilation and numerous other aspects of astrophysics. In
retrospect, it shouldn't matter if the effect falls short of explaining
the Hubble redshifts  it's a basic systematic error issue and needs to
be checked.]
thanks,
prasad

