There was a lot of really good stuff in that old thread, contributed by people like DeiRenDopa, sol invictus, ctamblyn, edd, ben m, Roboramma, lpetrich, and so on. You would do well to read through that thread, taking care to ignore Farsight's posts.
Ziggurat, hecd2, and several others have contributed some good stuff to this thread as well. You should pay more attention to them.
Thanks.
My calculations and hypotheses have changed quite a bit, thanks to their input.
It might seem like I learn nothing, as I plow ahead. But I don't think that's true.
That's to be settled by observation. The FLRW solutions allow dark energy in the mass/energy parameter, or in the cosmological constant, or in both together (which is the most general of those situations).
Very interesting. Thank you.
Considerable research has gone into estimating Hubble's parameter, but you have been rejecting much of the science on which that research is based.
Ok, to be fair, rather than say "rejecting", I'm open to the possibility the history of the universe can be derived from the CMB, and I'm open to the idea the CMB does not tell us the history of the universe.
In particular, you have been advocating ideas that are completely incompatible with relativity (and several other major areas of physics). I therefore have absolutely no idea of how you would go about forming any kind of scientific basis for calculating the distance to a light source with redshift z=2. Judging by what you have written in this thread and its predecessor, you don't either.
Ok. Check this out.
What I did is made a model of a photon and targets in space in space and they all move away at Hubble's law, and calculate the z based on the expansion of space stretching the wavelength.
https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/test.htm
Then I made another model where the targets are stationary, but the photon moves at v=c-HD. This makes the same z's.
I can just put the z I'm looking for the z input box on that page, and it'll report the distance at that z.
Here, I notice that v=c/(1+z), so c/(1+z)=c-HD.
I solve that for D = (c - c/(1+z))/H
So instead of running my program for all possible values of z until I get to where I want, I can just use that equation to punch in z.
That should legit for a basic expanding universe. That must be well known.
Annnnyyways, we notice that the universe is not simply expanding. It's accelerating in its expansion.
So, I look at v=c-HD, and say "how do I make this redshift less as z gets larger (*edit* D gets larger)", and it turns out v=c/(1+HD)
2 works.
H is not H
0, by the way. In that specific formulation, H is inverse distance. So I changed it to v=c/(1+D/H)
2 using plain old distance for units of H.
Then I made a model
In this case, the same pattern where v=c/(1+z) persists.
So now, 1+z=(1+D/H)
2
I can plug in any z where we have observational data, and get the right answer as the standard model.
Where we don't have z-distance data, this hypothesis predicts something very different than the standard model.
Since the slow photon is counter to physics, the hypothesis is instead framed as time dilation of cosmologically redshifted photons.
For an original frequency ν and original wavelength λ, the new frequency ν' is:
So, if my calculations are right, this redshift distance relation ought to put out the same distances for z<1 as the standard model, when you include dark energy.
! v is not the v in Hubble's law. H his nothing to do with Hubble. 
.
! We plug z = 2 into the model and get the distance. Otherwise there is no way to determine its distance from its redshift.
.
.