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

[Hans Blaster]

That's the mistake all make. Don't forget volume or area has a single dimention of distance, which in the Ho case is light years.

Nope. Volume has units of length cubed and area has units of length squared. Now, it is unusual to write an area with two different units of distance, but possible. (After all, US civil engineers and water management people measure volumes of water in "acre-feet" which is a volume of water covering 1 acre (an area) to a depth of 1 foot. It might be unusual, but it is sensible for water management. If you have a 55 acre reservoir and it increases by 2 feet then 110 acre-feet of water has been added.)

Ho is not measured in light years by actual astronomers. They don't use "light years" in their reports. Astronomers measure stellar and galactic distances in parsecs (pc) or prefixed multiples (kpc, Mpc, Gpc). The other units of distance astronomers use are astronomical units (AU, for planetary orbits), solar radii (R_sun, for stellar sizes), km (for comprehensibility), and cm (they prefer cgs units to the SI's mks). Ask an astronomer about the path of the Sun about the Galactic center and they will tell you: "a roughly circular orbit of 8.5 kpc at a speed of 220 km/s".

Hubble's constant is the slope of a plot of distance (in Mpc) in the horizontal axis and recession velocity (in km/s) in the vertical. Thus the units of H_o are [km/s] per [Mpc]. The dimensionality of the constant is actual [1/time] and if properly converted between km and Mpc, to be in [1/s] the age of the Universe is approximately 1/H_o.

What area or volume did the excaped gas leak out to? You can legitimately say it spread out to 2 miles distance. You CANNOT legitimately say it spread out to 2 hours. That would be nonsense. So you are wrong, are you not???

At this point no one can tell what you are ranting about. There has been no "escaped gas" discussed in this thread. It is about the expansion of the Universe and your failure to understand units.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What do NASA know about anything?? They simply squint through slightly bigger telescopes than you, but stll get the maths wrong, confusing distance by saying "distance and / or speed is time only". Prats. So you bow humbly down low and worship NASA prats

And lo, the mask has come off! The true face of arrogance that you think you know more than scientists is laid clear and simple for all to see.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do NASA know about anything?? They simply squint through slightly bigger telescopes than you, but stll get the maths wrong, confusing distance by saying "distance and / or speed is time only". Prats. So you bow humbly down low and worship NASA prats

How do you squint through a telescope in space?

Why are you here? Is it to denigrate science in general, or just NASA? Are you a flerfer?

 

[David Hine7]

How do you squint through a telescope in space?

Why are you here? Is it to denigrate science in general, or just NASA? Are you a flerfer?

I am only here to bring you truth, and if that brings me into direct conflict with areas of science corruption and deliberate errors and lies to suit corrupt agendas, that has to be right. That's why I put forward my 2 Ho equations to expose basic lies that prop up the fake big bang hypotheseis.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am only here to bring you truth,

Making errors is a poor way to do that.

and if that brings me into direct conflict with areas of science corruption and deliberate errors and lies to suit corrupt agendas, that has to be right.

You have not demonstrated any corruption.

That's why I put forward my 2 Ho equations to expose basic lies that prop up the fake big bang hypotheseis.

Your "Ho equations" do not actually give Ho because the units are wrong. What you have provided is a series of numbers to be multiplied and divided to get another number. That is numerology and it is meaningless.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am only here to bring you truth, and if that brings me into direct conflict with areas of science corruption and deliberate errors and lies to suit corrupt agendas, that has to be right. That's why I put forward my 2 Ho equations to expose basic lies that prop up the fake big bang hypotheseis.

But you have ZERO way of showing that anything you've said is the truth, unless you actually put it forward to scrutiny. That's how truths are found out, that's how scientific facts are found to be fact and how theories are found to be correct.

Just going around and going "Oh. It's the TRUTH! BECAUSE I SAY SO!" is infantile, idiotic and makes you look like the prat you claim NASA is.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Hubble Constant, Ho, (universe expansion) is central to Creation.

David, would you explain please what you mean by this statement?

Why is the universe's expansion central to Creation?

 

[David Hine7]

A very good question. During the universe Creation, God Creates expansion (Isaiah Ch 40) to prevent Olber's Paradox of "crowded light". To keep the universe stable, the expansion rate is 71, and anchored to light speed, C.:- 2 x oneMpc x C/Pi^21= 71 k/s/Mpc.

 

[AV1611VET]

A very good question. During the universe Creation, God Creates expansion (Isaiah Ch 40) to prevent Olber's Paradox of "crowded light". To keep the universe stable, the expansion rate is 71, and anchored to light speed, C.:- 2 x oneMpc x C/Pi^21= 71 k/s/Mpc.

The reason I asked is because I cringe when I see someone using science to explain how God created the universe.

Science wasn't involved.

You say "God creates expansion," and I can't go with that, as the Bible says God "stretched" the universe.

This is not a creation event, but a simple placing of the hands on the edges of the universe and pulling on them.

Expansion, on the other hand, implies PUSHING, not PULLING.

 

[David Hine7]

David, would you explain please what you mean by this statement?

Why is the universe's expansion central to Creation?

Note carefully, Isaiah says "stretches", not stretched (past tense). God does that by anchoring the stretching to light speed, C. Would you not agree that the same maths framework controlling C, also commands the universe to expand (or stretch) at the proportional rate of 71 k/s/Mpc?,

 

[sjastro]

Can somebody help me understand "the dynamic aether framework"? pi^21!? Do one have to calculate some area or volume for some hypersphere in a n-dimensional space (for a suitable n), or is it more some trigonometric function that gives rise to pi^21?

It is completely meaningless the volume of an n-ball in n dimensional space is given by the formula:

Г is the gamma function and has a known value Г(1/2) = √π.

For n= 2 dimensions

Г(n) = (n-1)! hence Г(2) = 1! = 1

V₂(r) = πr² the area of a circle.

For n = 3 dimensions.

Г(5/2) = (3/2)! = (3/2)(1/2). Г(1/2) = 3/4 √π using gamma recurrence.

V₃(r) = [π³´²/Г(5/2)]r³ = [(π√π/)/(3/4)√π]r³= (4/3)πr³ the volume of a sphere.

If π²¹ is a term in the equation we would exist in 42 dimensional space.
If you are a 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' fan where 42 is the answer to everything this might have some significance but I doubt it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A very good question. During the universe Creation, God Creates expansion (Isaiah Ch 40) to prevent Olber's Paradox of "crowded light". To keep the universe stable, the expansion rate is 71, and anchored to light speed, C.:-

Not what Olber's paradox is.

2 x oneMpc x C/Pi^21= 71 k/s/Mpc.

No, wrong units.

2 * 1 Mpc * c * pi^21 = 71 ly * Mpc

 

[Stopped_lurking]

It is completely meaningless the volume of an n-ball in n dimensional space is given by the formula:

View attachment 372194

Г is the gamma function and has a known value Г(1/2) = √π.

For n= 2 dimensions

View attachment 372195

Г(n) = (n-1)! hence Г(2) = 1! = 1

V₂(r) = πr² the area of a circle.

For n = 3 dimensions.

View attachment 372196

Г(5/2) = (3/2)! = (3/2)(1/2). Г(1/2) = 3/4 √π using gamma recurrence.

V₃(r) = [π³´²/Г(5/2)]r³ = [(π√π/)/(3/4)√π]r³= (4/3)πr³ the volume of a sphere.

If π²¹ is a term in the equation we would exist in 42 dimensional space.
If you are a 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' fan where 42 is the answer to everything this might have some significance but I doubt it.

I knew it! Douglas Adams was right all along. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[David Hine7]

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

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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

How old do you claim the universe to be, David?

 

[David Hine7]

There is no definite answer to that question about age of the universe. All we know it's big. It may have been Created quite large "In the beginning", and now expands at 71 k/s/Mpc to avoid Olber's Paradox Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is no definite answer to that question about age of the universe. All we know it's big. It may have been Created quite large "In the beginning", and now expands at 71 k/s/Mpc to avoid Olber's Paradox Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia

Again: use the reply function, please. It's polite.

And that's not an answer to my question at all: How old do you claim the universe to be, David?

 

[David Hine7]

Again: use the reply function, please. It's polite.

And that's not an answer to my question at all: How old do you claim the universe to be, David?

No one knows the age of the universe. I cannot make that claim, neither can you. We can observe up to the Hubble horizon, but that is distance, not years.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No one knows the age of the universe. I cannot make that claim, neither can you. We can observe up to the Hubble horizon, but that is distance, not years.

Fair enough.

Still think you're talking out your behind, but fair enough.

 

[sjastro]

No one knows the age of the universe. I cannot make that claim, neither can you. We can observe up to the Hubble horizon, but that is distance, not years.

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.