The last part of the most recent post...

mmmmm....

Tastes like anthropocentrism. We are just at the exact right place and time that a constantly accelerating model can't be distinguished from a decelerating model...

I, for one, don't like the taste of anthropocentrism. It's a little too pat, and avoids asking further questions with "that's just the way it is" rather than asking "why would it appear that way?"

The assumptions that have lead to the greatest leaps in thought are when we reason as if we were not something special, and I for one think that expansion and cosmology should follow in this vein more than any other science.

The logic presented assumes the hubble constant is constant as part of the argument for the hubble constant being constant. That's a bit of circular reasoning if I've ever seen the like.

Standard candles are different from Hubble redshifts. IF Hubble redshift constant: standard candle (brightness and duration) should agree with redshift. However, for objects closer (less further back in "time" according to Hubble redshift) the delay is longer than it should be, given the redshift. This is where the conjecture about accelerating expansion comes in. One is left with either supernovae are different now than then (taking longer and longer to achieve maximum brightness over time) which implies something special about "now," or redshift is not constant in slope, but accelerating.

The trick is to find out why now looks like now. Finding out a mechanism for expansion and describing its behavior over time might come closer to establishing why the now is not special, rather than putting together special circumstances that by chance lead to what we see now but would not see at any other time.

The idea that the true nature of the universe is hidden by just the right set of circumstances does not wash with me.