Quote:
|
Originally Posted by antoniseb
I thought I made this pretty clear in my first post. We observe the Hubble "constant" as an input parameter.
However, big bang models explain the observed distance red-shift relation pretty well, and can interpolate a distance from a red-shift or vice versa reliably. This includes the region where z=6, which is definitely non-linear compared to the local environment. So to that end:
It agrees perfectly, because it IS the observed one. The expanding universe cosmologies have their parameters tuned to match this observation.
|
With respect, antoniseb, I don't think it does.
Isn't this why acceleraton has to be introduced?
That is, distant supernova are dimmer than they should be as per the BB redshift relatonship. i.e it gets it wrong so it has to be patched with acceleraton.
However, since you say that the BB cannot derive or predict a value for "H" that can be compared to observation, then it surely can't be much of a theory - can it?
Cheers,
Lyndon