OK, it went like this:
1. I am aware of the wide spread of results for the "Hubble In
Constant", such as shown on #3.
2. I am also aware of the fact that these results are slowly being refined. Vide
"Whatever dark energy is, explanations for it have less wiggle room following a Hubble Space Telescope observation that has refined the measurement of the universe's present expansion rate
to a precision where the error is smaller than five percent. The new value for the expansion rate, known as the Hubble constant, or H0 (after Edwin Hubble who first measured the expansion of the universe nearly a century ago), is 74.2 kilometers per second per megaparsec (error margin of +/- 3.6). The results agree closely with an earlier measurement gleaned from Hubble of 72 +/- 8 km/sec/megaparsec, but are now more than twice as precise
." My bold
Source:NASA - Refined Hubble Constant Narrows Possible Explanations for Dark Energy
3. I saw your post #2, which contains: "Yes, no matter what direction we look, . . . . . . The Hubble Constant is the same no matter where we look"
I questioned whether this might reflect improved accuracy in the HC, and therefore asked you
"That is news to me. I will really greatly appreciate it, if you will kindly refer me to this new agreed result." I added: "I am not trying to be funny. Even if you simply refer to greater equanimity
, I will welcome more unification in methods and conclusions." because I didn't want to confuse the possibilities of "a perfect result" with a less dramatic, but still important, improvement in accuracy. I mentioned unification in methods and conclusions
since there have been two cases requiring different methodology and giving different results. I was therefore particularly interested in the possibility of unification in method/results which might have been obtained.
4. You clarified the issue by adding "to within a few percent". You will appreciate that this is very different from a bald "The Hubble Constant is the same no matter where we look."
5. I pointed out politely in my post #6
"Thank you for your reply. I am sorry if I misunderstood what you posted:
"The Hubble Constant is the same no matter where we look."
I now understand that you are making certain assumptions.
"This is only approximately true"
I see no point in elaborating further. EOS.
"Since we had established limits of accuracy, and I felt that nothing new had been introduced, and that there was no point to extending the discussion, I suggested that we had ended useful discussion of the subject. I am sorry if you interpreted this as being in any way harsh, but I was slightly sorry that what purported the possibility of new unification and accuracy in Hubble Constant data had turned out disappointing. If this upset you, then I apologise. At my age (83), I take my motto seriously "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
I am a scientist, published by Marcel Dekker (Surfactant Science Series) as editor and author, and author of dozens of published articles and scientific training materials, and this may have resulted in my being a little "picky" in interpreting printed statements.