The accelerating universe and what's wrong with it

There is a whole lot wrong with this theory of expansion of
acceleration and dark energy.
First, it is commonly claimed (and therefore believed) that the
supernovae are perfect candles at long distance when in fact they are
six weeks long dynamically variable "Roman candles" where it is a rare
thing to catch one showing its maximum output. Most are caught on the
down slope of the last six weeks and then they can only compute the
rate of decline. On top of that it is found that the observed display
is stretched ("time dilation") by a factor 1+z, with red shift
responsible and this "allows them to normalize for the maximum
luminosity" (as I remember), but it is never clearly stated how or if
they juice up or down the luminosity or what they do, but it results
in tinkering with the estimated magnitudes in an undocumented manner.
None of this would be necessary if you could depend on the
chandresikhar 1.4Ms story since by now they would all have an
established absolute magnitude, but you won't find one written down.
This would be the value as seen at the distance of 10 parsecs.
Expected magnitude Should Be given by the Distance parameter equation
m-M = 5log(D/10pc), but they don't have distance, so instead they used
z. It can be shown that distance is not proportional to z, as is
popularly supposed, another defect.
The discrepancy behind all this excitement is simply about a few
supernovae lying higher in magnitude at z = 0.5 than the plotted
straight line distance parameter when there is every possibility and
even probability that wrong adjustments were made to the measured
values.
Two very long and complex papers by Leibendgut and Goldhaber failed to
make clear what adjustments they were making on the basis of the time
dilation. However, they do point to the time dilation as positive
evidence of cosmological red shift, even though the latter is a form
of space dilation not time dilation.
It appears that this acceleration story probably borrows its roots in
the acceleration story (Guth) at time of creation, as if in an effort
not to introduce the unproven arcane, but, when in the next breath
they offer the notion of dark energy, that objective point has been
surrendered.
The overwhelming odds are that the universe never did any such
acceleration and this is merely a case of bad metrology in adjustment
of the magnitudes.
Dark energy does not exist, but that will not finally be proven to
everyone's satisfaction until we get out as far as, oh, say, z = $10
billion or more.
John Polasek