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

[Urwumpe]

Or easier: Maxwell died half a year after Einstein was born, and belonged to an earlier academic generation. The Aether theory was popularized in 1845 by Gabriel Stokes, but the Michelson-Morley experiment, that proved Stokes theory to be wrong, happened in 1881. Maxwell published his research still at a time, when the assumption of an aether was not only OK, but actually seemed quite likely. Thats also why Einsteins theories became so significant by uniting all the smaller work by other scientists since Michelson into one theory that explains all the new observations.

It fixed physics, that appeared to be completely broken since then.

 

[Ajaja]

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

Where do you see Mpc in the formula? I see ly*km/s. So, it's the new value of Hubblus Constant = 71 ly*km/s.

 

[Gondos]

Or easier: Maxwell died half a year after Einstein was born, and belonged to an earlier academic generation. The Aether theory was popularized in 1845 by Gabriel Stokes, but the Michelson-Morley experiment, that proved Stokes theory to be wrong, happened in 1881. Maxwell published his research still at a time, when the assumption of an aether was not only OK, but actually seemed quite likely. Thats also why Einsteins theories became so significant by uniting all the smaller work by other scientists since Michelson into one theory that explains all the new observations.

It fixed physics, that appeared to be completely broken since then.

SR and Lorentz ether theories are not distinguishable and can be viewed as different interpretations of the same phenomena, both are based on the Lorentz transformation.
Einstein's point of view won because apparently at that time, a 4 dimensional hyperbolic rotation between time and space and a postulated (unobservable) isotropic oneway speed of light made more sense than an unobservable absolute reference frame.
With GR, maybe someone can (or already has) come up was a dynamic ether fluid theory that leads to the same Einstein field equations, but it will probably be rejected due to the same Occam's razor argument. Looks like scientists have completely renounced physical interpretability, and even ridicule anyone trying to make sense of our reality.
For proponents of a theory that cannot explain the rotation of galaxies without piling up hacks left and right, that sounds a bit arogant...

 

[Urwumpe]

For proponents of a theory that cannot explain the rotation of galaxies without piling up hacks left and right, that sounds a bit arogant...

Well, what would you prefer:

1. A substanceless and unmoving aether that can never be observed by its definition.
2. Dark energy and dark matter, that currently cannot be observed, but might be observeable in the future.

 

[DavidM777]

Hi. The equation does not change anything, other than linking Ho numerically to C, and so separating the reciprocal of Ho at 13.8 billion years
from the age of the universe (as C does not change with passing time). Instead, the reciprocal of Ho becomes the "Hubble Horizon distance",
of 13.8 billion light years, beyond that distance observation becomes impossible due to infinite redshift.
Therefore, we do not know the age of the universe!! Interesting.

 

[DavidM777]

Dark energy and dark matter is probably much the same thing as Maxwell's "dynamic aether" of 160 years ago!!

 

[Gondos]

Well, what would you prefer:

1. A substanceless and unmoving aether that can never be observed by its definition.
2. Dark energy and dark matter, that currently cannot be observed, but might be observeable in the future.

I'd prefer scientists kept an open mind

 

[Urwumpe]

I'd prefer scientists kept an open mind

So its 2.

Because if you have an open mind, you don't take an answer for granted and stick to it, but challenge it. Yes, maybe Lambda-CDM is utterly wrong and Einstein a fool. Maybe its all HQT suddenly. Maybe the Chaos gods just play with us. But openmindedness in science still means, that you prefer answers, that allow new questions, over answers that form the end of all science.

Yeah, maybe thats why a theory of everything will have such a hard time, since it essentially means that at least natural science will eventually collapse into mathematics or theology, depending on the state of humanity.

 

[DavidM777]

I'd prefer scientists kept an open mind

The problem is paid scientists are not really scientists these days. The "real" scientists now are the amateur ones, who are not "duty bound" to tow the "scientific establishment's" line, otherwise being outcast as heretic. Patrick Moore ALWAYS said he was an "amateur", and that was how he kept an open mind. In cosmology, we don't know much because we can only look through telescopes. That automatically limits vastly our path to the truth.

 

[DavidM777]

It may now be appropiate to discuss the cause of the Hubble Tension?

 

[Urwumpe]

It may now be appropiate to discuss the cause of the Hubble Tension?

I don't know it. I only know that any solution can not have a behavior being somewhat related to distance, since direct observations show a different value than indirect observations based on the cosmic microwave background. The perfect solution would be an object, that allows measuring the Hubble constant both ways. But that can't be found yet.

Maybe the effect is just nuclear physics and the universe didn't become transparent to radiation suddenly or in a sufficiently short period of time, but had a long enough absorbtion effect, that we don't get the radiation we expect to find, but always the radiation that had to pass through a "stained glass universe" first.

 

[Urwumpe]

The problem is paid scientists are not really scientists these days. The "real" scientists now are the amateur ones, who are not "duty bound" to tow the "scientific establishment's" line, otherwise being outcast as heretic. Patrick Moore ALWAYS said he was an "amateur", and that was how he kept an open mind. In cosmology, we don't know much because we can only look through telescopes. That automatically limits vastly our path to the truth.

I strongly disagree there. Amateur either means you spend you time earning money for living or be one of the rare privileged people who just inherit riches and the people to earn more money, so they have the time to enjoy science. If they want to.

Full-Time sciencists in a capitalist world are always people who are lucky enough to be paid for what they like to do. And can spent nearly the full day doing science. And because science gets much more sophisticated and specialized, you need to work full-time on it, to have even the slightest chance to not depend on a one in a billion luck to find something innovative in science. Scientists maybe just work in small steps, but every step is a step forward. With amateurs, only one in a billion steps is the step forward, in the best case, their steps will only be a step on the same place. Or worse, thanks to Youtube and other social media, a step backwards, when it comes to pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.

That is not supposed to be a rant against amateurs, since I would be ranting against myself too then. Amateurs still do great things and some amateurs really do find great things. Or ask the question that can make scientists have a lot of fun on finding the answer in form of science*. But they don't do it by fighting against professional science, but by collaborating with it and learning from it. Same for those great amateurs, who just communicate the result of science to other amateurs. (But thats not meaning that the audience now knows the full science themselves, sorry).

*Like historians lately when somebody asked about a specific hat in a tank movie and suddenly found themselves happily diving into their archives trying to find the origin or similar photos....

 

[DavidM777]

The issue here is if the "base explanation" is wrong, whatever follows will be as "the house built on sand". It is now apperent Edwin Hubble's redshift observation was hastily and wrongly interpreted by Lemaitre. Lamaitre's "explanation" of expansion was much easier to "picture" back in the 1930's than returning to Maxwell's "dynamic aether" on which his and Eistein's Relativity are based for the truth. Another basic error is the reciprocal of Ho at 13.8 billion has to be light years, (which is distance), and cannot be years only. From that, we don't know the age of the universe. Only an amateur is in the position of exposing BASIC faults in theoretical cosmology that the paid scientist would not dare to do. So then, "the house built on sand" continues with more and more confusion, such as the Hubble Tension and other very serious errors in the standard model !!

 

[Urwumpe]

You use strong words there to criticize a theory, that actually mostly works and explained a lot of phenomena we have here. While at the same time, coming to the fight naked and bare-handed.

If the current house is build on sand, you suggest building it on hot air.

 

[DavidM777]

There comes a time in cosmology when a hypothesis (big bang / expansion) has to be abandoned. There are too many holes in it that are constantly being "ducktaped". Eventually, you cannot afford truckloads of ducktape, it becomes so embarrasing it's better to let "the house built on sand" collapse. I reckon Daffy Duck would agree with that -"Quack quack"

 

[Urwumpe]

Maybe it just lacks room for a larger family and only needs to have its attic improved into new bedrooms. How could you tell, if you don't learn what is actually the problem, before you tell that its a ruin and needs to be abandoned in favor for something that currently looks more like a childrens drawing of a house?

 

[DavidM777]

I do not wish to be drawn into a personal slagging off contest. We all know the BB and universe expansion hypothesis is not true, so it needs to be replaced. If there is something sensible and constructive from you, please let me know. That is the purpose of cosmology forums.

 

[Urwumpe]

I do not wish to be drawn into a personal slagging off contest. We all know the BB and universe expansion hypothesis is not true, so it needs to be replaced. If there is something sensible and constructive from you, please let me know. That is the purpose of cosmology forums.

Everything is not "true". Even mathematics still contain unproven theorems. That doesn't mean that you can now come around and claim 1+1 = 3.

 

[DavidM777]

Urwumpe. Attatched is the 2 x oneMpc x C/π^21= 70.94 k/s/Mpc Ho calculation as done on an online calculator. Looks fine, no fudge factors,
and shows Ho is numerically "fixed" to C. No trick in this "dynamic aether based equation. A truly "elegant" equation indeed !!.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes, and it does not fit to the observations:

So what? An elegant arbitrary number (Why is the average radius of Earths orbit something special? Antropocentrism!) that is not confirmed by measurements is still wrong.