There is very strong evidence from Type 1a supernova that the Hubble Constant isn't constant. It changes over time. This is the primary evidence behind an accelerating universe, a fact that is well established in the field of astronomy. If the Hubble Constant changes with time, then there is clearly something wrong with your theory. After all, even if the hubble constant were exactly equal to hr/m right now, that means that it wasn't equal to hr/m a couple gigayears ago, and that it won't be equal to it in the future. How do you explain the change in the hubble constant with your tired light theory?
I am glad you mentioned this point as these results proves beyond doubt that tired light is correct!
The observational result is that distant Ia supernovae are dimmer than predicted by an expanding universe. That is, measure the redshift; calculate how far they are away as per a Hubble constant which is constant and equal to the 'local value' and one finds that this is about 20%? out with the distance measurement calculated from their apparent brightness.
Applying the scientific method means that the theory of an expanding universe is wrong and should be rejected.
But what do they do? They trump up acceleration - for no other reason than to make the theory fit the observed results.
Now a couple of papers at least that know of took these results and said "I wonder how they would fit tired lights exponential redshift formula. Guess what they found. The predicted results fitted the observed results perfectly! wth no acceleraton.
Tired light gets it right. BB gets it wrong so has to rely on trumping up acceleration
I will find you some references and answer your other posts later if that is OK - busy at work at present.
