In article , greywolf42
writes:

One cannot 'measure luminosity.' It's simply not possible without first
making several assumptions. We *can* measure 'brightness' or 'apparent
luminosity.' To measure 'luminosity' (which for your uses means 'absolute
luminosity'), one must first determine the distance and net extinction of
the source. This requires at least two theoretical models.

OK, we count photons at the lowest level (or measure a current
proportional to the number of photons---or measure a voltage which,
given a resistance is related to the current: whatever). What
assumptions do you think are wrong? Sure, any measurement is a long
chain from the actual measurement to the quantity of interest, but that
in itself is not a criticism.

Russell and Whitehead once wrote a book on mathematics where they tried
to justify everything explicitly. It took them a large number of pages
before they got to 1 + 1 = 2. Useful, perhaps, for the philosophy of
mathematics, but not for buying potatoes at the market.

(The fact that one gets the same result
as with more global methods is another argument in favour of the
(current, but probably relatively robust) standard model.)

What are the 'more global methods' to which you refer?

For H_0: the HST key project is relatively local, gravitational-lens
time delays are more global, and the CMB is very global.

The point is that CMB measurements only indicate 'flatness' for the BB. No
matter how you denigrate competing theories.

Show me another theory with adjustable parameters which, when these
parameters are varied within some pre-CMB-knowledge ranges, is
compatible with the CMB data for only some combinations of parameters.
If the CMB is compatible with none, it's ruled out by the CMB. If it is
compatible with the whole range of parameters, it's not (yet) testable.

This estimate for globular-cluster ages is obsolete. What's your
reference?

It is not sufficient merely to claim an observation is 'obsolete,' and then
avoid my question entirely.

You made the claim first. Give me a reference and I'll give you a
newer, better reference showing it to be wrong.

"Dark Energy" may not be observed. The observation is that the Hubble
constant is not linear at far distances. "Dark Energy" is the ad hoc
rationale to account for the observation (the new epicycle).

The point is that the non-linearity is NOT completely arbitrary, but is
easily explained by an idea which has been around for decades.

Equations of state are theoretical constructs. The observation is simply
that the "Hubble constant," isn't constant.

You are displaying extreme lack of knowledge here. The term "constant"
in "Hubble constant" means that, at a given time, it is constant
everywhere in the universe.

Another strawman argument. No, I'm not assuming GUTs are true. But they
are popular.

Creationism is popular in much of the U.S. And your point is?

Excellent. Another physics myth torpedoed.

True science is self-correcting.

But you still understand what the perceived problem was. Hence, there is no
need to imply that there never was a perception of the problem. And no need
to denigrate others for addressing the 'problem.'

Only if the problem has long since been solved. Galileo was wrong about
the tides, but there is no point in coming up with some theory other
than the differential attraction of the moon to explain his fault.