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

sjastro · Wednesday at 3:14 PM

David Hine7 said:
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??

The mathematics is clearly beyond your intellectual capacity so let's try the familiar balloon analogy.
If you draw dots on a balloon and inflate it, each dot will move away from every other dot as the space between each dot which is a 2D surface is increasing. The dots themselves are stationary as they are not moving across the surface.
This is known as metric expansion which has the further property the velocity of a receding dot relative to any other dot increases with increasing distance between the dots.

This is clearly beyond your comprehension as when we refer to velocity and acceleration of an object when it travels from point A to point B, it is assumed A and B are fixed points in space and their distance remains constant.
In metric expansion however the distance changes and this needs to be taken into consideration.
This is why Ho has units of km/s/Mpc and not km/s as the recession velocity also depends on distance which is not constant.

sjastro · Wednesday at 3:15 PM

David Hine7 said:
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

Word salad.

Tinker Grey · Wednesday at 3:24 PM

I'm truly puzzled: Is the OP actually saying that 71 is somehow a magic number? Is it special somehow? I can't parse thru the "word salad" to figure out what the point is.

Too, what's the motivation for dividing by π²¹? May as well divide by e²⁴.

sjastro · Wednesday at 3:28 PM

David Hine7 said:
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.

This is the classic Dunning Kruger effect.
John Cleese describes it in a non diplomatic way.

David Hine7 · Wednesday at 4:24 PM

I must admit I find you guys on here very amusing. Rather like Professor Einstein trying to wise up Tesco shelf fillers with deeper maths than needed for counting out tins of beans.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Wednesday at 4:28 PM

David Hine7 said:
I must admit I find you guys on here very amusing. Rather like Professor Einstein trying to wise up Tesco shelf fillers with deeper maths than needed for counting out tins of beans.

Maybe you'd get a better and more stimulating result if you actually put your maths out in to the wider scientific community, rather than a random Christian forum.

Just saying.

David Hine7 · Wednesday at 4:40 PM

The secular "scientists" are thicker than you guys, so please take that as a compliment.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Wednesday at 4:43 PM

David Hine7 said:
The secular "scientists" are thicker than you guys, so please take that as a compliment.

Which reads more like "I'm too scared to do it because they know more about what they're talking about and would rip me to shreds more than these guys did."

Come off it, David. In science, it's publish or perish, and with stuff like this, all it reads as being snooty and rude, which is poor form for any one, especially a Christian.

So simple fact: put up or shut up. Give this formula to actual scientists and be done with it. Stop blagging around on here for personal clout.

sjastro · Wednesday at 5:13 PM

David Hine7 said:
The secular "scientists" are thicker than you guys, so please take that as a compliment.

One is tempted to make the juvenile reponse it takes one to know one.

sjastro · Wednesday at 5:50 PM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
So simple fact: put up or shut up. Give this formula to actual scientists and be done with it. Stop blagging around on here for personal clout.

No scientist worth his salt would waste time on this drivel.
For example:
"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."
While this looks impressive to the uninitiated, the presence of an aether irrespective of whether it is static or dynamic has never been detected and contradicts the main postulates of SR (Special Relativity) of no aether being required to propagate light and the speed of light c is the same to all observers.

If there was a dynamic aether SR is wrong which leads to another problem of GR (General Relativity) being wrong as well.
GR is the gravitational model for cosmology and the Hubble constant is predicated on c being constant to all observers.

It becomes a pointless exercise to even discuss the Hubble constant when our resident self professed genius cannot tell us how the Hubble constant is derived if the dynamic aether theory is correct.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Wednesday at 5:52 PM

sjastro said:
No scientist worth his salt would waste time on this drivel.
For example:
"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."
While this looks impressive to the uninitiated, the presence of an aether irrespective of whether it is static or dynamic has never been detected and contradicts the main postulates of SR (Special Relativity) of no aether being required to propagate light and the speed of light c is the same to all observers.

If there was a dynamic aether SR is wrong which leads to another problem of GR (General Relativity) being wrong as well.
GR is the gravitational model for cosmology and the Hubble constant is predicated on c being constant to all observers.

It becomes a pointless exercise to even discuss the Hubble constant when our resident self professed genius cannot tell us how the Hubble constant is derived if the dynamic aether theory is correct.

I still stand by what I said. If he thinks it's worth the time, then he should put up or shut up.

Ophiolite · Wednesday at 7:00 PM

David Lamb said:
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, I'm regret being unable to make this clear. AV1611VET asked this:

AV1611VET said:
Is this the equivalence of saying 93 million miles equals one astronomical unit?

Hans asked "What are miles" which he later explained in post 112 was a joke. That's the post I referred to as being immediately preceding yours - yours was 113.

Until @Hans Blaster tells me I am letting my imagination run wild, I think his question is also an implicit way of saying "No AV, it is not equivalent."

I'm sorry my intervention did the opposite of clarifying things for you and took us even further off-topic.

Edit: On the other hand, taking the thread off topic might be the kindest thing we can do.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 7:24 PM

David Hine7 said:
The secular "scientists" are thicker than you guys, so please take that as a compliment.

This does not compute "David" as I am an actual scientist. And since all science is definitionally "secular", does that mean I am thicker than me?

You've now moved from failing at unit arithmetic to insults. Yesterday would have been a good time for you to stop. Today is your second best option.

sjastro · Wednesday at 7:56 PM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I still stand by what I said. If he thinks it's worth the time, then he should put up or shut up.

Unfortunately his expectation would be affirmation not criticism, a reviewer would be labelled thick for disagreeing with him like the posters in this thread.

Gene2memE · Wednesday at 9:22 PM

OP has been making this argument online since (at least) early 2018.

They seem to have gone on a posting bender about this topic in the last few months or so.

So far, they do not appear to have taken onboard any of the manifold corrections on offer from various math, cosmology, astronomy and general science forums. Nor those of PhD theoretical physicists...

David Hine7 · 2025-10-30T12:03:50-0500

It will from now onwards always comes back to this elegant Hubble Constant equation:-

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..........

Hubble Constant (Ho) Using Online Calculator (Screenshot) (2) - Copy.png
242 kB

The other equation to prevent falsifying the Hubble Horizon light years distance as years only:-

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.

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

sjastro · 2025-10-30T19:22:39-0500

David Hine7 said:
It will from now onwards always comes back to this elegant Hubble Constant equation:-

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..........

Hubble Constant (Ho) Using Online Calculator (Screenshot) (2) - Copy.png
242 kB

To use your own terminology since you are too thick to explain how multiplying by Mpc in the numerator ends up in the denominator for Ho so let's go to the next issue.

David Hine7 said:
The other equation to prevent falsifying the Hubble Horizon light years distance as years only:-

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.

Using your formula (Mpc x c) / (Ho x 10⁹) = (c/Ho) x (Mpc)/10⁹
If you had used the correct units to start with c/Ho is the radius of the universe expanding at speed c and you would not have to rely on the fudge factor Mpc/10⁹.
This is the Hubble radius which is the correct definition not Hubble horizon as we can observe beyond this.

If the universe was expanding at speed c the Hubble radius c/Ho and Hubble time 1/Ho would have the same magnitude but clearly not the same units.
Declaring the Hubble radius “prevents falsifying the terminology of declaring light years as years only.” is nonsensical.

Here is the some information on the universe.

David Hine7 said:
===========================================================================================

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.

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

Back to the word salad again, the Hubble tension is the difference in measuring Hₒ for an object in the universe’s early history the CMB with that of galaxies formed in far more recent times.
Since the error bars do not overlap this is the source of the tension.

Hans Blaster · 2025-10-30T19:51:03-0500

David Hine7 said:
It will from now onwards always comes back to this elegant Hubble Constant equation:-

Your "equation" is not elegant. It is clunky. It is also arbitrary. You have given *NO* justification for why you use certain numbers in certain powers. Show us your derivation of the equation.

David Hine7 · 2025-10-31T05:17:17-0500

The elegant equations come from Maxwell's description of how the dynamic Aether dictates the speed of light vibrations. Newton, Faraday Maxwell and Einstein never forgot "God did it"!! That's the basis of the two Hubble Constant equations. Learn them and enjoy:-

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

Ophiolite · 2025-10-31T07:22:02-0500

@David Hine7 . I can't help thinking that your constant repetition of Ho, Ho, Ho, is no more than a timely reminder that Christmas approaches.

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

Newbie

Newbie

Wanderer

Newbie

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

I march with Sherman

Newbie

Newbie

Active Member

Newbie

I march with Sherman

Active Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency