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

[DavidM777]

Ho is now locked down or "fixed" to 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 = 71 k/s/Mpc


Measuring Ho gives the "ballpark" value of Ho, and now we have an Ho equation that locks Ho to light speed, C, which
has to be much more precise.

Note that in the numerator, distance is multiplied by speed, 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.

In this equation, directly input the values below:-

oneMPC is 3260000 light years

C is 299792.458 k/s

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

With very kind regards, David Hine.

Email:- [email protected]

 

[JMW]

Ho is now locked down or "fixed" to 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 = 71 k/s/Mpc


Measuring Ho gives the "ballpark" value of Ho, and now we have an Ho equation that locks Ho to light speed, C, which
has to be much more precise.

Note that in the numerator, distance is multiplied by speed, 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.

In this equation, directly input the values below:-

oneMPC is 3260000 light years

C is 299792.458 k/s

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

With very kind regards, David Hine.

Email:- [email protected]

Welcome to the forum David.
That Southend air is certainly good for the mind!
Look forward to your input.

 

[DavidM777]

Happy Wanderer. Thanks for your kind reply and also thanks to the Orbiter forum moderators for allowing new things about Hubble's Constant to be discussed. Hubbles Constant opens up big insights into how the universe really functions. Huge surprises, and deep rethinks about present universe explanations are now required. It's "back to square one" as far as cosmology theories go.

 

[DavidM777]

I'm hoping we can build on this in the Orbiter forum!! All responses will be replied to with honesty and hopefully no BS from me. Please correct me if I try to BS anyone. Others here may wish to add things that this equation, or something else, opens up for them. Maybe the equation "faulty" in some way. This is a great testing place for moving theoretical cosmology progress onwards. That, unfortunately, is NOT now permitted in the establishment "closed shop" universities. Try publishing anything without "impossible to obtain peer reviews" and other official proceedure "obstacles" put in your path!!

 

[DavidM777]

Hi. A guy that has been working on explaining the universe and quantum things is Delbert Larson. Delbert (who lives in the USA) has run into extreme opposition from the scientific establishment, who don't like his progressive ideas they cannot disprove. Delbert works by advanced math methods that are way beyond me.. Delbert posts on "X", and can be followed and contacted there. To answer the previous post by Ell, anything in motion, relative to a stationary observer has an "elevated status" (kinetic energy) in the "dynamic aether" of Maxwell and Einstein. Einstein was "forced" to call Maxwell's dynamic aether "spacetime" to avoid being labelled "heretic" by the scientific establishment, who hated Einstein's equations when they first appeared. Dynamic aether and spacetime are basically similar, but with spacetime lacking many of the deeper properties of Maxwell's Aether. That's why today "they" have to "invent" dark energy / matter, etc., etc...

 

[francisdrake]

Thanks for pointing to the definition of the Hubble constant!
I basically knew what it is, but had no idea how it was defined, and how it is in relation to natural constants, like the speed of light.

One small remark: Maybe it its better to write kilometers as km (not only k), so the dimension would be [km/s/Mpc]

 

[DavidM777]

Hi Francis Drake. In order not to mislead anyone, I will point out the establishment veiwpoint is Ho is "random" and not fixed to anything, other than the aged of the universe, the reciprocal of Ho being around 13.8 billion years. However, the Hubble calculating equation disputes that by "fixing" Ho directly to light speed, C. It has to be one or the other, as C does NOT change as the universe ages. If the equation is correct, we will know Ho with great precision, but NOT have any clue as to how old the universe is. If the equation is correct, the recoprocal of an Ho of 71 is now 13.8 billion light years, which then would then be the "Hubble Horizon distance" ONLY. Powerfulnew telescopes will soon be used to measure Ho more precisely, and the "Hubble's Law" page on Wikipedia is the place to see the latest Ho measured values.

 

[Gondos]

I have no idea where your formula is coming from but it's obviously a bunch of random numbers put together, "Des chiffres et des lettres" style. The units aren't even consistent.
Maybe there is some thruth in some of what you're saying but starting with something that fishy won't help support your point.

 

[DavidM777]

Hi Gondos. Are you having a problem with the maths itself or the implications of this equation?. It's new stuff and this equation fulfils a purpose because there are now huge cracks in the standard model appearing. The standard model is obviously wrong on several fronts. That's why extremely powerful and costly new telescopes coming online soon to assist with the Ho observations. Keep your eyes on Wikipedia's Hubble Law page,with particular reference to the various Ho charts there.

 

[Urwumpe]

Hi Gondos. Are you having a problem with the maths itself or the implications of this equation?. It's new stuff and this equation fulfils a purpose because there are now huge cracks in the standard model appearing. The standard model is obviously wrong on several fronts. That's why extremely powerful and costly new telescopes coming online soon to assist with the Ho observations. Keep your eyes on Wikipedia's Hubble Law page,with particular reference to the various Ho charts there.

You mean the Lambda-CDM model?
Can you name a few points whats wrong with them?
And what of that does your numerics fix?

PS: Some people here don't read Wikipedia. They write it.

 

[Gondos]

Given that a megaparsec is an arbitrary measure of distance depending on the distance of our planet to the sun, the way we split a circle based on the historical babylonian's sexagesimal system, and the human species having 10 fingers, I can't see the relevance of your formula. H0 is the result of a measure and it's not even constant.

 

[Urwumpe]

Given that a megaparsec is an arbitrary measure of distance depending on the distance of our planet to the sun, the way we split a circle based on the historical babylonian's sexagesimal system, and the human species having 10 fingers, I can't see the relevance of your formula. H0 is the result of a measure and it's not even constant.

Recently it was even agreed upon, that there are two different H0 values, depending on which universe you observe.

 

[DavidM777]

There is always the danger with the standard model of "generated nit picking" because it's deeply flawed in several ways, and no one in the "establishment" wants to face up to that. A Mpc is an "agreed" large distance measuring unit of 3.26 light years. The observed "Hubble Tension" is likely to be caused by light speed, C, being slightly different in regions of space voids and in regions close to huge galaxies and blackholes. This small change of "C" is RELATIVE to the observer, and causes the observed "Hubble Tension". The effects on "C" are dealt with in Einstein's Relativity. I hope that answers your questions as far as I am able.

 

[Urwumpe]

There is always the danger with the standard model of "generated nit picking" because it's deeply flawed in several ways, and no one in the "establishment" wants to face up to that. A Mpc is an "agreed" large distance measuring unit of 3.26 light years. The observed "Hubble Tension" is likely to be caused by light speed, C, being slightly different in regions of space voids and in regions close to huge galaxies and blackholes. This small change of "C" is RELATIVE to the observer, and causes the observed "Hubble Tension". The effects on "C" are dealt with in Einstein's Relativity. I hope that answers your questions as far as I am able.

No. Not at all. Let me quote the famous naturalistic scientist Joey Kelly: Why? Why? Why?

Also... correct my holy memory of Einsteins theory, but aren't both theories sharing the claim, that everything is relative, but not the vacuum speed of light?

(And no. Hubble tension is not that. But what Hubble tension is, that is the big question of current cosmology)

 

[DavidM777]

Hi urwumpe. You are quite right in saying the speed of light is fixed for any observer, because nature HIDES the change of C as redshift, so we need to move into the dynamic Aether framework basis of Maxwell's / Einstein's equations to really understand what's going on. What is observed is the redshift that really is the change of C hidden as redshift!! The slight changes of C, caused by local conditions in distant space regions, translates itself to changes of redshift, and that's what the observer interprets as the "Hubble Tension". So to understand the Hubble Tension, we need to accept the "dynamic aether basis" of Maxwell's and Eintein's equations, that are sensitive to local variations, RELATIVE to a distant observer. We CANNOT escape the concept of the "dynamic Aether" if we want to also make sense of Ho, and what Ho REALLY is the measure of !!

 

[Urwumpe]

Aether.

 

[DavidM777]

We now have the hypothesis that dark matter and dark energy are actually the "dynamic aether" repelling "solid" matter made of atoms into clumps, much like the effect of attempting to mix oil and water. That is what gravity is. Gravity is NOT an attrative "force" between objects, but Newtons equations are still perfectly fit for purpose. The equations of dark energy are also describing interstellar "gravity" just as the Ho equation is describing light energy loss caused by light travelling through the aether as redshift. This is getting closer to the theory of everything.

 

[DavidM777]

Can I suggest "dark matter and energy" is the Aether wrapped in modern clothing?

The dynamic Aether I am refering to is NOT the "static ether substance" that Michleson-Morley could not detect, but the "dynamic Aether"

on which Maxwell and later, Einstein based their equations.

This is the "dynamic Aether" that causes inertia and its constants, and from that, Maxwell was able to calculate light speed, C.

From the direct connection numerically between C and Ho, the Hubble Tension is a mystery no longer!!

 

[Urwumpe]

Einsteins aether was both "motionless" and "substanceless", which made it in his own theory not existing at all - he only used the term for explaining his special theory to aether theorists.

 

[DavidM777]

This is a very tricky one because Einstein was "advised" by Professor Eddington NOT to mention the Aether of Maxwell's equations.

This is wrapped in "acedemia politics", that (for some VERY odd reason) acedemia do not accept Maxwell's equations depend on a

"dynamic aether", in order for Maxwell to then use its "inertia constants". This dynamic aether inertia was first observerd by Faraday.