Thus spake Chalky
On Jan 20, 8:20 pm, Oh No wrote:
Thus spake "John (Liberty) Bell"

Oh No wrote:
Nevertheless, if I remember correctly, Ned Wright does mention the
need to include the possibility of an offset parameter, and I note
that you also concluded that a best fit to my law would be achieved
using a small adjustment to the absolute magnitude of type 1a
Supernovae.

Would I be correct in concluding from this that such an offset
parameter is associated with correcting inaccurate prior absolute
magnitude assumptions of the 'standard candles, if not Ho?

Yes. Altering it and altering H0 are equivalent in the formulae, so an
error in one is absorbed by an error in the other.

One further question:- although you initially correctly concluded that
cosmological parameters were n/a for my law, within your chi^2
analysis, I recall that in one or two of your subsequent postings, you
started quoting cosmological parameters for my law too. What was that
all about?

Unless there was a typo I only quoted variation in absolute magnitude as
that was the only free parameter.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email