Thanks Mr. Pirro. I did a calculation and found that if I presume that there is a loss of energy from the electromagnetic waves originating from distant galaxies, that it would of course necessitate a lengthening of the wavelength. Furthermore, the wavelength of more energetic light would be shifted by a smaller amount than would the wavelengths of less energetic (redder light). This occurs presupposing an equal percentage loss of energy at all light frequencies. As a consequence of that feature, two galaxies at a greater distance than a closer pair would have a greater absolute 𝜟R assuming an equal difference in synchronous vs opposite galactic rotation rates. This would not be seen if the redshift is caused only by recessional velocity. Per the paper in your link, the empirical findings of an increasing 𝜟R support the tired light theory.
Further support for tired light comes from a paper written by theoretical physicist Lior Gupta who suggests light loses energy over time based upon some equations from Paul Dirac.

The tired light theory and your argument suppose suggests that photons lose energy due to interactions with matter or other particles over vast distances. However, no physical mechanism has been found that could cause photons to lose energy in this way without also scattering them, which would blur images of distant galaxies. Observations show that distant objects remain sharp, which is inconsistent with the predictions of tired light.

Furthermore, please explain how this incomplete and very simply contrarian theory explains the well documented time dilation of distant supernovae. Observations of distant Type Ia supernovae show that their light curves are stretched in time, consistent with the expansion of space. If tired light were responsible for redshift, this time dilation effect would not occur.

These are just two very practical and easy to understand examples that discredit the tired light theory. I won't even bother to get into how it can't predict the CMB or how it doesn't work with general relativity because it doesn't have a foundation in fundamental physics.

Let's put some context out there. This paper is published in a journal owned by a rapidly-expanding corporation that was listed on a list prepared by librarians of "predatory open access publishing" companies. To call it "peer reviewed" is a rather extreme stretch. The author is not an astronomer nor even a physical scientist. It's a single-author paper, which is rare in today's era of large collaborations but common among those who think they have a new sudden insight from outside the field and are annoyed that they are not immediately recognized for their genius by people working within it.

Within the field, we call this phenomenon "adult-onset cosmology." It's depressingly common. I can't think of a single case in the last half century in which it has ever contributed something positive to the field, but it does produce lots of clickbait.

I thought it was rather ingenious of professor Shamir to use this method to find a support for "tired light". Occasionally it is the person outside the field who makes a contribution.