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

[AV1611VET]

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

Is this the equivalence of saying 93 million miles equals one astronomical unit?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Is this the equivalence of saying 93 million miles equals one astronomical unit?

What are miles?

 

[David Lamb]

What are miles?

What a strange question! A measurement of length, 1760 yards.

 

[Ophiolite]

What a strange question! A measurement of length, 1760 yards.

Only strange if you fail to take into account the post it was replying to. Thus, I ask you now, what are yards?

 

[David Lamb]

Only strange if you fail to take into account the post it was replying to. Thus, I ask you now, what are yards?

Well, the post you were replying to said:

"Is this the equivalence of saying 93 million miles equals one astronomical unit?"

Surely if the sun is 93 million miles from the earth, and you multiply 93 million by 1760, you get the number of yards in an Astronomical Unit. (I should say that I am no scientist, so please bear with me if I am spouting rubbish by saying that )

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, the post you were replying to said:

"Is this the equivalence of saying 93 million miles equals one astronomical unit?"

Surely if the sun is 93 million miles from the earth, and you multiply 93 million by 1760, you get the number of yards in an Astronomical Unit. (I should say that I am no scientist, so please bear with me if I am spouting rubbish by saying that )

One thing I am driving at is that, so far, your statements are accurate, but as definitions they are entirely circular. I'm seeking to lead you towards one of the points I think @Hans Blaster was making.

 

[David Hine7]

The reciprocal of Ho at 71 is 13.8 BLY's. Distance. The example of the reciprocal of 30 Miles per hour is 2 minutes per MILE. SPEED. All of you break the reciprocal rule that you MUST retain the original units. So 13.8 billion years is INVALID as the Ho reciprocal. The reciprocal of Ho must be stated as 13.8 billion light years. DISTANCE.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The reciprocal of Ho at 71 is 13.8 BLY's. Distance. The example of the reciprocal of 30 Miles per hour is 2 minutes per MILE. SPEED. All of you break the reciprocal rule that you MUST retain the original units. So 13.8 billion years is INVALID as the Ho reciprocal. The reciprocal of Ho must be stated as 13.8 billion light years. DISTANCE.

Can you explain why the physical quantity isn't ( [length] / [time] ) / [length] = [length] / ( [length]*[time] ) and why the two [length] measures can't cancel each other apart from some constant if the [length] units are different?

In your example with miles per hour and minutes per mile there is no physical quantity that is both in the numerator and the denominator, so it isn't clear why that example would be relevant.

Where does this reciprocal rule come from?

 

[Larniavc]

Can you explain why the physical quantity isn't ( [length] / [time] ) / [length] = [length] / ( [length]*[time] ) and why the two [length] measures can't cancel each other apart from some constant if the [length] units are different?

Silly goose! Why do all of that when you can simply write ‘goddidit’?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The reciprocal of Ho at 71 is 13.8 BLY's.

NO. The reciprocal of Ho is 14 billion *YEARS*.

Distance.

TIME.

The example of the reciprocal of 30 Miles per hour is 2 minutes per MILE.

Correct.

SPEED.

Nope. That is inverse speed. Speed is specifically distance/time, not the inverse.

All of you break the reciprocal rule that you MUST retain the original units. So 13.8 billion years is INVALID as the Ho reciprocal.

14 billion years *IS* retaining the original dimensions.

The reciprocal of Ho must be stated as 13.8 billion light years. DISTANCE.

Nope. See a few dozen posts above by several posters. (Some of us have worked through this basic cosmology in an actual class.)

 

[sjastro]

The reciprocal of Ho at 71 is 13.8 BLY's. Distance. The example of the reciprocal of 30 Miles per hour is 2 minutes per MILE. SPEED. All of you break the reciprocal rule that you MUST retain the original units. So 13.8 billion years is INVALID as the Ho reciprocal. The reciprocal of Ho must be stated as 13.8 billion light years. DISTANCE.

The irony is you are the one breaking the reciprocal rule by changing the fundamental units.
As explained in post #95 the units of Ho are LT⁻¹L⁻¹, the inverse of which is time T. If the inverse was length L you would have to change the units of Ho to TL⁻¹T⁻¹.

This is what happens when your faith based argument falls apart under scrutiny, cognitive dissonance sets in where logic and coherency disappears.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Is this the equivalence of saying 93 million miles equals one astronomical unit?

Last night I made a joke about the Englishman's silly units, here is my serious answer:

It isn't. The example you have given one unit of length is converted to another unit of length. These are just consequences of the definition of one unit of length relative to another. Like 1 in. = 0.0254 m (exactly, by law).

The relationship between the Hubble constant and the age of the Universe derives from the basic solution of the Einstein equations in the FLRW metric given by @sjastro in post (I think) #11. From those equations you can identify an expression for what we observe locally as the Hubble Law and define Hubble's constant. Using that definition the relationship between the age of the Universe is clear as: age ~ 1/H_o.

 

[David Lamb]

One thing I am driving at is that, so far, your statements are accurate, but as definitions they are entirely circular. I'm seeking to lead you towards one of the points I think @Hans Blaster was making.

I have no idea what you mean. The post from Hans Blaster to which I original replied asked, "What is a mile?" It seemed (and still seems) a strange question to me, as sure most people know, or can look up if they have forgotten, the fact that a mile is a linear measurement equivalent to 1760 yards. Perhaps I'm just being over simplistic, but I still don't see the point of the question.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea what you mean. The post from Hans Blaster to which I original replied asked, "What is a mile?" It seemed (and still seems) a strange question to me, as sure most people know, or can look up if they have forgotten, the fact that a mile is a linear measurement equivalent to 1760 yards. Perhaps I'm just being over simplistic, but I still don't see the point of the question.

I didn't get it either, but, oh well.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have no idea what you mean. The post from Hans Blaster to which I original replied asked, "What is a mile?" It seemed (and still seems) a strange question to me, as sure most people know, or can look up if they have forgotten, the fact that a mile is a linear measurement equivalent to 1760 yards. Perhaps I'm just being over simplistic, but I still don't see the point of the question.

@Hans Blaster has explained in the post preceding yours that his question was a joke about people who still use Imperial units. However, it also implicilty highlights that the Hubble relationship being discussed is not a matter of discussing a measurement in different units. I took the question to AV to mean "What are miles AV? Whether you are talking miles, or centimeres, or chains, or light years you are just changing the units. So your comparison of such an equivalence to the use of Hubble's Law just doesn't work." I may have read more into it than was intended, but it made the question "What are miles?" seem to me to be a useful one. Did that help?

 

[David Lamb]

@Hans Blaster has explained in the post preceding yours that his question was a joke about people who still use Imperial units. However, it also implicilty highlights that the Hubble relationship being discussed is not a matter of discussing a measurement in different units. I took the question to AV to mean "What are miles AV? Whether you are talking miles, or centimeres, or chains, or light years you are just changing the units. So your comparison of such an equivalence to the use of Hubble's Law just doesn't work." I may have read more into it than was intended, but it made the question "What are miles?" seem to me to be a useful one. Did that help?

In his post preceding mine he simply asked, "What is a mile?" No explanation about the question being a joke, just the four-word question.

 

[David Hine7]

Wise up time. Hubbles Constant (Ho) is 71 k/s over a specified distance. It's a speed DISTANCE unit. Now the CLEVER bit that FOOLS you. If you want the reciprocal of Ho, you divide Ho into one, and the result is 13.8 billion LIGHT years (distance). My example of the reciprocal of 30 MPH is 2 minutes per MILE. It cannot be stated as 2 minutes only. The same with the reciprocal of Ho. It is 13.8 billion LIGHT years (distance), NOT years only (time). Is this beyond your understanding??

 

[David Hine7]

For clarity I will repost the Hubble equations:-

Hubble Constant (Ho) fixed to light speed, C and calculated as 71 k/s/Mpc



Ho is now "fixed" to local light speed, C by this simple Ho equation worked in the old algebra style of Maxwell:-


2 x oneMpc x C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 = 70.9449 k/s/Mpc



In this equation, directly input the values below:-

oneMPC is 3260000 light years

C (local) is 299792.458 k/s

Pi is 3.142..........

Astronomers measuring Ho give the "ballpark" values of Ho, and now we have an Ho equation that "fixes" Ho to
local light speed, C, which has to be much more precise.

Note:- In the numerator, distance (Mpc) is multiplied by speed (k/s), and that is NOT an error in this situation, as the "distance squared" does not affect the numerical value of the Ho redshift by
"spreading out" (as any light source does) when viewing that redshift for Ho along just
one dimension only.

The dimensionless denominator Pi^21 sets the scales of this Ho equation correctly into the Dynamic Aether framework.
The Dynamic Aether Framework is not the static aether that the Michleson-Morley experiment could not detect, but
the Dynamic Aether that Faraday knew caused electrical "reluctance", and that Maxwell used as the basis for his
electric and magnetic "inertia" constants, and used in his Aether equations to calculate light speed. C..


=============================================================================================
Hubble Constant (Ho) Hubble Horizon Distance light years calculated from Ho of 70.9449 k/s/Mpc.



oneMpc X C, divided by Ho, and then divided by one billion = 13.7758 billion light Years



In this equation, directly input the values below:-

oneMpc is 3260000 light years

C (local) is 299792.458 k/s

Ho is 70.9449 k/s/Mpc

one billion is 1,000,000,000 used to give the answer in convenient units of
billions of light years.


Note:- This Hubble Horizon Distance equation prevents falsifying the terminology of
declaring light years as years only.



===========================================================================================

The "Hubble Tension Issue"

Note:- In the "Dynamic Aether Framework" of the Ho calculating equation in which Ho is "fixed" numerically to C,
the "Hubble Tension issue" is caused by the "DISTANT LOCAL VALUE" of C in the observed space regions being
directly affected by the presence of huge galaxies, black holes. or void areas, RELATIVE to the observer.

Download all attachments as a zip file

• 
  
  Hubble Constant (Ho) Using Online Calculator (Screenshot) (2) - Copy.png
  242 kB
• 
  
  Hubble Constant (Ho) Hubble Horizon Distance Light Years Using Online Calculator (Screenshot) - Copy.png
  245.4 kB

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Put these equations out to the wider science community rather than just posting them here. See what others have to say. If you're right, the truth will out.

Right now, this comes across as a guy yelling into emptiness for not other reason than to shout.

 

[David Hine7]

There is now fierce debate over these Ho equations. The Vera Rubin telescope operators are also on the case, and will produce Ho information soon, done by their measurements. If those agree with my calculated Ho value of 71, you will have to accept my equations as truth. Then, the concept of a dynamic Aether will become necessary to accept the basis of my equations. It looks like the big bang hypothesis will soon fall. BB has misled too many for far too long. We cannot know the age of the universe.