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

[David Hine7]

It is a pioneering development in cosmology to be able to calculate Ho from simply knowing light speed. These leaps in cosmology are rare these days. I notice another forum is discussing the fall of the LCDM model.
It's 2 x oneMpc x C/Pi^21 = 71 to the rescue of cosmology

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let's get back on topic. The Vera Rubin telescope will be publishing their own measured values of Ho quite soon.

Very soon? I don't think so. The LSST survey only begins this fall.

Here is an article on the control room where they are not squinting through a telescope from thousands of km away.

Remote Eyes on the Sky: Inside SLAC’s Rubin Control Room | Rubin Observatory

With survey operations set to begin this fall, the Rubin control room at SLAC will serve as a key hub for training and remote observing support for NSF–DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory

rubinobservatory.org

The telescope is still undergoing commissioning.

I anticipate these will also be very close to 71, and not be outside the 67 and 74 "ballparks". So far my calculated 71 falls EXACTLY in the centre because I used our local value of C at 299792.458 k/s in the 2 x oneMpc x C/Pi^21 = 71 k/s/Mpc equation.

 

[sjastro]

Let's get back on topic. The Vera Rubin telescope will be publishing their own measured values of Ho quite soon. I anticipate these will also be very close to 71, and not be outside the 67 and 74 "ballparks". So far my calculated 71 falls EXACTLY in the centre because I used our local value of C at 299792.458 k/s in the 2 x oneMpc x C/Pi^21 = 71 k/s/Mpc equation.

(1) The Vera Rubin telescope is designed to vastly increase the discovery rate of Cepheid variables and type 1a supernovae in galaxies for the defemination of Hₒ. It will not be directly involved in its determination as it does not the spectroscopic capabilities to determine redshift.
It will download the information to telescopes which have this capability.

Role	Instrument	Data Type	Contribution to H₀
Rubin Observatory (LSST)	8.4 m optical survey	Discovery, light curves, positions	Finds Cepheids & SNe; provides brightness evolution
Spectroscopic telescopes (Gemini, VLT, etc.)	Optical/NIR spectroscopy	Redshift, classification	Confirms SN type, measures z
HST / JWST	High-res optical/NIR	Cepheid calibration	Anchors distance ladder locally
CMB observatories (Planck, ACT, Simons Obs)	Microwave	Early-universe parameters	Provides independent early H₀

(2) Since the Vera Rubin telescope does not have microwave capabilities but only optical, there is no guarantee Hₒ will drop to 71 given it currently stands at ~73.0 ± ~1.0 km/s/Mpc for Cepheid variables and type 1a supernovae which is a 1-2% uncertainty.
It could very well stay at around 73 with a smaller uncertainty due to a much larger sample size.

(3) Hₒ does not have have "ballpark" figures of 67 and 74.

Hₒ = 73.0 ± 1.0 km/s/Mpc using Cepheid variables and type 1A supernovae in galaxies.
Hₒ = 67.4 ± 0.5 km/s/Mpc using the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background)

Apart from the obvious arithmetical error you do not round off 73 to 74 and the average of 67 and 73 is 70.
This is irrelevant as the Hubble tension reveals Hₒ has distinctly different values for the early universe compared to more recent times indicating new physics is required or there is some error in the measurements.

 

[Yttrium]

It's 2 x oneMpc x C/Pi^21 = 71 to the rescue of cosmology

After all this I still have no idea why you would multiply those particular numbers together, and what they have to do with God.

 

[Ophiolite]

(3) Hₒ does not have have "ballpark" figures of 67 and 74.

In my book the use of the term "ballpark", especially when it is placed within quotation marks, excludes the use of rules on rounding numbers. The quotation marks and the word itself do not just imply that this is a colloquial expression, with the consequent relaxation of rules, but strongly affirm it. To object to the resultant numbers, while ignoring this is pedantic and wrong.

I see nothing in @David Hine7 's posts that makes sense. You have systematically dismantled his arguments. This specific attack on his numbers is out of place in your correction of his speculation.