"Charles Francis" wrote in message ...
[ snip ]
I think Riess only has three data points above z=1.4 . Actually the
number of points above z=1 is probably not enough for statistical
significance, given that there is quite a scatter below z=1. There seems
to be some issue with SN1997ff anyway, because correction for
gravitational lensing may not be accurate (see abstract below - any
comment, Philip? this is your field isn't it). How does it affect the
fit if you take out the two or three highest redshifts, which may be
unbalancing the result?

Not much I don't think. The fit of other 154 points shouldn't be affected
much by removing just three.

The teleconnection Omega=1 relation looks too close to call to the
Astier fit, for z up to about 1. He has a large scatter of points,
reinforcing the idea that there are not enough points about z=1.4 to be
valid. It looks to me like the teleconnection probably gives the better
fit. Any chance of testing that data?

Yes! I entered Astier's data into my Matlab program this morning, and
results are posted on my website. When I fit Riess's equations 11 and
12 to Astier's data (the red line in the plot), the optimum Omega_m I got
was 0.25 at H0 = 71. Chi-square was 1259.6.

When I fit Riess's equations with your modification (the blue line), the
optimum Omega_m was 1.09 at H0 = 69.6, with a chi-square value
of 1265.7.

-- Bob Day