Hubble Constant (Ho) fixed to light speed, C and calculated as 71 k/s/Mpc. God did it!!

[David Hine7]

The particle horizon is the limit not the Hubble horizon which is around 14 billion light years.
Galaxies beyond the Hubble horizon have redshifts z greater than 1.46.
The CMB has a redshift z of around 1100 placing it at a distance of about 44 billion light years.

Thanks for that. As the universe is stretching, observed distances will be far greater than 13.8 BLY's. That's expansion at work. However it does not tell us the age of the universe. It's questions like these that make cosmology more interesting, but we must be aware of cheating, or "conveniently overlooked" errors to suit agendas.

 

[Larniavc]

At this point no one can tell what you are ranting about.

Given my job I’m fairly confident what is going on with this flight of ideas.

So I’m keeping well out of it from now on.

 

[Apple Sky]

Given my job I’m fairly confident what is going on with this flight of ideas.

So I’m keeping well out of it from now on.

IMO this thread is a load of jargon with all it's equations, God made everything in 6 days = 6,000 years, end of - Amen.

 

[David Hine7]

Given my job I’m fairly confident what is going on with this flight of ideas.

So I’m keeping well out of it from now on.

There is certainly petty cheating when it comes to the age of the universe question. The agenda is simple. A universe billions of years old rules out the Creator. That's why the Creator is one step ahead, and wisely witholds any way of prideful man knowng the precise universe age. That leaves us guessing it. It's far better to carefully study Genesis to get an approximate "ballpark" value guess for the age of the universe.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

IMO this thread is a load of jargon with all it's equations, God made everything in 6 days = 6,000 years, end of - Amen.

And yet it certainly doesn't look like He did....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is certainly petty cheating when it comes to the age of the universe question. The agenda is simple. A universe billions of years old rules out the Creator. That's why the Creator is one step ahead, and wisely witholds any way of prideful man knowng the precise universe age. That leaves us guessing it. It's far better to carefully study Genesis to get an approximate "ballpark" value guess for the age of the universe.

No, it only rules a literal and uncompromising reading of the Bible based on a singular interpretation of the Bible that stems from a single group of American Christians.

Though this actually does answer my question from before much better. It's always better when a person admits they're a YEC from the start.

 

[Apple Sky]

And yet it certainly doesn't look like He did....

I know, what is wrong with folk ?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know, what is wrong

Something something no-one accepting your personal interpretation of the Bible. Something something atheistic science denying God. Something something nonsensical claim about science.

 

[Desk trauma]

A universe billions of years old rules out the Creator.

How?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The reciprocal of Ho at 71 k/s/Mpc MUST be expressed as 13.8 billion light years to conserve Ho as a distance constant. EVERYONE makes the basic mistake of expressing 13.8 as years only. Unless you can resolve that issue, the big bang hypothesis fails.

No. Ho is an inverse time. 1/Ho is approximately the age of the universe. Ho is NOT a distance constant.

It just needs one other astronomer observation that contradicts the BB, and it will fall. It may also become apparent the 71 value of Ho observed will not change with time, the 13.8 BLY's being the Hubble horizon distance.

Good luck with that.

Many scientists are now seriously doubting the BB, and not driven by supporting Creation reasons.

LOL.

 

[sjastro]

Thanks for that. As the universe is stretching, observed distances will be far greater than 13.8 BLY's. That's expansion at work. However it does not tell us the age of the universe. It's questions like these that make cosmology more interesting, but we must be aware of cheating, or "conveniently overlooked" errors to suit agendas.

I suggest you work on correcting your own errors and lack of understanding such as an object beyond the Hubble horizon is unobservable or why 1/Ho has dimensions of time and gives an approximate age of the universe respectively.

You may come to the realization there is no cheating or "conveniently overlooked" errors but somehow I doubt it as yours is an anti-intellectual agenda driven by seeing science as an attack on your faith.

 

[David Hine7]

A reciprocal is simply dividing something into one. That something cannot be expressed as anything else. So Ho is a distance speed something, so to suit your agenda you choose to only preserve the time aspect. That's either CHEATING or ERROR or BOTH, is it not? So can miles per hour be expressed as hours in the reciprocal?? A reciprocal of anything must be convertible back to the original "something", whatever that was. I should not have to guess the orignal, should I?

 

[Yttrium]

A reciprocal is simply dividing something into one. That something cannot be expressed as anything else. So Ho is a distance speed something, so to suit your agenda you choose to only preserve the time aspect. That's either CHEATING or ERROR or BOTH, is it not? So can miles per hour be expressed as hours in the reciprocal?? A reciprocal of anything must be convertible back to the original "something", whatever that was. I should not have to guess the orignal, should I?

Ho is distance divided by time (i.e. velocity) all divided by distance. The distance units cancel out, leaving only inverse time.

 

[David Hine7]

Ho is distance divided by time (i.e. velocity) all divided by distance. The distance units cancel out, leaving only inverse time.

That is abusing a maths principle. It's legitimate in some scenarious, but NOT in this situation, BECAUSE you are falsifying the situation. Use this equation:- oneMpc x C, divided by Ho = light years. Then divide by one billion to give the answers in BLY's, which will be around 13.8 BLY's.

 

[sjastro]

A reciprocal is simply dividing something into one. That something cannot be expressed as anything else. So Ho is a distance speed something, so to suit your agenda you choose to only preserve the time aspect. That's either CHEATING or ERROR or BOTH, is it not? So can miles per hour be expressed as hours in the reciprocal?? A reciprocal of anything must be convertible back to the original "something", whatever that was. I should not have to guess the orignal, should I?

Do you have a problem in using the quote function?
What is evident in your response you do not understand dimensional analysis or even simple arithmetic.

Here is a primer on dimensional analysis.
A physical property can be broken down into more fundamental units such as L (length), T (time) and M (mass).
Velocity which is distance divided by time is defined as LT⁻¹, acceleration LT⁻², force MLT⁻², pressure (force/area) MLT⁻²L⁻² = ML⁻¹T⁻² etc.

Since Hₒ is in km/s/Mpc it has the units LT⁻¹L⁻¹ = T⁻¹, hence 1/ Hₒ = T which is units of time.
Simple isn’t it and there is nothing nefarious about it.

So where do the units of Hₒ come from in the first place?
Astronomers are able to calculate recession velocities using the cosmological redshifts obtained from the spectra of distant galaxies and their distances when type 1a supernovae occur.

When plotting recession velocities in km/s against distance in Mpc they obtain this.

The line of best of fit is defined by the equation Velocity = Hₒ x Distance which is Hubble's law where Hₒ is the gradient or rate of change defined as km/s/Mpc.

 

[Yttrium]

That is abusing a maths principle. It's legitimate in some scenarious, but NOT in this situation, BECAUSE you are falsifying the situation.

A basic principle of math applies in only certain scenarios? Do tell.

if you're using some goofy, made-up version of math, you gotta tell us the rules.

Use this equation:- oneMpc x C, divided by Ho = light years.

You're going to have to invent a new version of math to make this kind of thing work.

 

[David Hine7]

What is the reciprocal of 30 miles per hour? It is 2 minutes per MILE. Your way would say 2 minutes. Do you still insist you are right??

 

[Yttrium]

What is the reciprocal of 30 miles per hour? It is 2 minutes per MILE. Your way would say 2 minutes. Do you still insist you are right??

No, our way would say 2 minutes per mile. The inverse of distance over time is time over distance.

 

[sjastro]

What is the reciprocal of 30 miles per hour? It is 2 minutes per MILE. Your way would say 2 minutes. Do you still insist you are right??

 

[Hans Blaster]

A reciprocal is simply dividing something into one. That something cannot be expressed as anything else. So Ho is a distance speed something, so to suit your agenda you choose to only preserve the time aspect.

It is a speed divided by a distance. While that seems odd, we do the opposite all the time.

If you divide a distance traveled (150 miles) by a speed ( 75 miles per hour [75 mph]) you get --- 2 hours aka --- time.

In the road travel example, I'm not sure what the usefulness of the inverse would be, but we can take another example.

If that 150 mile drive used 5 gallons of gasoline, that is 150 miles/5 gallons, or 30 miles per gallon [mpg], but we could instead talk about how many gallons per mile of gas it takes: 5 gallons/150 miles or 1/30 gallon per mile. Because that is a rather small number to talk about, in other countries they use the equivalent of liters/100 km. (In my example 3.3 gallons per 100 miles.)

That's either CHEATING or ERROR or BOTH, is it not? So can miles per hour be expressed as hours in the reciprocal??

Yep. In my example it is 1/75 hours per mile. If you convert hours to minutes it is 60/75 = 4/5 minutes per mile or 48 seconds per mile. This is very useful when estimating travel times, or calibrating your speedometer on the freeway while bored.

A reciprocal of anything must be convertible back to the original "something", whatever that was. I should not have to guess the orignal, should I?

It's not about guessing, it is about knowing the physics. In this case, 1/H_o ~ age of Universe.