So why did you change your tune from the last 200 to the last 50 years? You said the measurements had been constant. Now you admit they haven't and have changed the timeline. What's next?
"2) You never answered my question as to why a Type 1A supernova are pretty much uniform from location to location. Very rarely is anything different between them. Yet the speed of light when they occurred all varied WILDLY. EXPONENTIALLY so even."
Because you only define those supernovae that fit the criteria as Type 1A. The others are 'something else'.
"3) The pat answer I usually get for the time/distance discrepancy is “gravitational time dilation”. AS if those three words actually answer anything. Since you replied to my post citing that, I tried to follow up with you. Since you don’t want to tackle that, then we’ll skip it."
One again, it's not my argument and I never referred to it.
You have avoided explaining the 'horizon problem', which I did posit to you.
I changed from 200 to 50 years to maximize the significant digits in the values. We can go back to 200 years if you like, then you’ll show a faster value someone came up with and ignore a slower value that I find.
If you are going to compare a Type II supernova to Type 1A supernova, then we can stop here. It’s pointless to continue because you refuse to answer.
You say horizon, I say inflation
You say problem, I say theory
horizon, inflation, problem, theory
lets call the whole thing off.