But you just claimed the non-expanding model fits better, but now you agree there is no such analysis? And that's simply not true as I explained. z=0 in fig 7 would be just a vertical line at z=0. All SN would have zero redshift, this is completely incompatible with the data. In FLRW redshift comes from expansion, if there is no expansion there can be no redshift. Such a model cannot explain these data with redshifts from 0.3 to 1.0, they should also be zero. The fact that the observed redshifts of the SN are non-zero disproves the non-expanding model. There is nothing to fit in this model.
All of the lines of fig 7 are expanding models, and there are many more possible parameters. And these adjustments are not arbitrary. K corrections are necessary when dealing with photometry at different redshifts through fixed filters, dust in the host also affects the brightness. Then there is the fact that SN-1a are not all exactly the same, they are standardisable through measuring the width.
Blondin uses spectral templates to fit spectroscopic ages. It is an independent test no less. Goldhaber et al. look at 35 SCP SN and 18 low redshift ones, that's your control test. And they do fit the supernovae individually and together, Fig 3 is from the individual fits. Knop et al. has no plot testing for time dilation.
A control test means testing if the data fits a non expanding
model. You don’t control test just the theoretical assumption being made.
And make up the results for the competing model
That would be like a vaccine maker only testing the vaccine results.
And pretending those not taking the vax were worse off.
I never said there was no analysis at z=0!
On the contrary if one fits the data to z=0 you get as good
a fit if not better. Not least..Considering the various SCP sourced fits
(Knop 2003 ) fiddled the data to make it fit their expanding model.
Pg 7 Knop.
What I said was Knop,Blondin, Goldhaber et al all claimed the
data doesn’t fit z=0. But didn’t even bother to check there own
Erroneous claims with a z=0 fit. Can you show me where in your
2 cited papers or Knop 2003 where exactly they tried fitting the
data to z=0? I don’t think you can. Seeing as they didnt.
You also say “ if there is no expansion there can be no redshift.”
What evidence do you have to back up this claim?
For starters: the erroneous claim by BBT supporters that energy is ”lost” in transit in a non expanding model.
How so? No energy is lost. Don’t forget that light emitted
between 10-20 nm is the same energy as it’s redshifted counterpart
20-40nm. Not less. Seeing as although it’s 1/2 energy for double the wavelength..but double the range than emitted. Which equals out to no
Energy lost in any “tired light” model
And..Fact is so far Hubble, then JWST have only verified the non
expanding z=0 models predictions of mature metal rich galaxies
as far as we can see. And ruled out any BBT “early universe”
predictions as false.