Hubble Constant (H₀) fixed to light speed c and calculated as 71 km/s/Mpc

Hubble Constant (Ho) fixed to light speed, C and calculated as 71 k/s/MpcMy name is David Hine, and here is an interesting Hubble Constant equation that "fixes" Ho to local light speed, C.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/MpcIn this equation, directly input the values below:-oneMPC is 3260000 light yearsC (local) is 299792.458 k/sPi 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..With very kind regards, David Hine.Email:- dhine2999@yahoo.com=============================================================================================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 YearsIn this equation, directly input the values below:-oneMpc is 3260000 light yearsC (local) is 299792.458 k/sHo is 70.9449 k/s/Mpcone 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.

Thread copied here from the Hubble Constant (Ho) fixed to light speed, C and calculated as 71 k/s/Mpc thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Wonderful. This new discrepant number can now take its place with the other two values of H₀ we have yet to decide among (68.22 km/s/Mpc from the CMB data and 73.5 km/s/Mpc from the super nova data). The problem is the other two values are calculated from observable features while this new one seems conjured from patched together math with no evidence of such relationships.How did you arrive at this equation?[Phat] And, no, Phat. This doesn’t seem to be about lightspeed or lightyears. It appears to dabble in numerology as a scientific construct.I’m calling BS.

Variations of messages 1 can be found on a number of sites.It appears to be an almost exact copy from
Hubble Constant (Ho) fixed to light speed, C and calculated as 71 k/s/Mpc - General - AstronomyAdminnemooseus

You will not be able to prove these two Hubble equations wrong. If I win this debate, the universe was Created by God as described precisely by Moses in Genesis

Numerology indeed.

but if you lose the debate, where does that leave us?

That’s not how this works, David. I’m not here to entertain you. You are here to entertain me.You come in here with some off-the-wall BS so YOU are expected to defend it, explain it and give provenance.If you cannot do that then you lose the debate, your BS remains BS and, I guess, your god goes back to being non-existent.I asked a question. Where did the 21 exponent on PI come from? I think I know but would like your confirmation.Would also like to know the reasoning behind the inclusion of each term you use: 2, oneMpc, C, Pi, 21 exponent and the observational evidence you use to justify their inclusion.You cannot just come in here and say this.Answer the questions, in detail, as if you are trying to explain this to a bunch of knowledgeable science nerds. That’s the rest of us, here.I will not waste my time on trying to debunk your BS. Either explain yourself or take your god and go away.

It isn't up to us to prove you wrong. It's up to you to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) yourself right.From Measuring the Age of the Universe - Las Cumbres Observatory :

quote:

---

Now that you have a value for the Hubble constant, one simple thing you can do to wrap up the activity is estimate the age of the Universe. This can be done by finding the inverse of the value of Ho .

​

1. If the Universe has been expanding at a constant speed since its beginning, the Universe's age would simply be 1/Ho

​

Assuming this is true, calculate the age of the Universe using your value for the Hubble Constant.

​

2. Next, multiply you answer by 3.09 x 10^19 km/Mpc to cancel the distance units. You now have the age of the Universe in seconds!

​

3. Divide this number by the number of seconds in a year: 3.16 x 10^7 sec/yr

​

4. Now you have worked out the age of the Universe in years using real observational data!

---

That seems pretty straightforward to me. No mention of Pi of any exponent.H0 is ~70 (km/s)/MpC. The reciprocal would be MpC/(km/s). We can move the seconds up into the numerator for (MpC*s)/km. When we multiply by 3.09E19 km/MpC that cancels out both the km and MpC leaving us with seconds. Multiply by 1 year/3.16E7 seconds and you get years.With those numbers I get 14.0 billion years which is pretty close to the current consensus age, and the difference isn't surprising given the assumption of constant spatial expansion and a rough number for the Hubble constant.

But you’re missing the big PI! Kinda lacking on the dessert tray don'cha think?I’ll see myself out.

I didn't at first understand his equation, so for anyone who had the same problem here's a reexpression of it. Let me know if I've made any mistakes: If this is correct then he has a units problem since the left hand side has units of m²/s while the right hand side is the Hubble Constant units of km/s/Mpc. He's trying to make some point about the Hubble Constant, but I didn't follow what it was.--Percy

Hi Percy. Go back to my first post and carefully read why the m^2 does not change anything. The thing is these equations work, giving the LOCAL value of Ho directly linked to the LOCAL value of C, which is 299792.458 k/s. The second equation gives the 13.778 billion answer as light years,which is distance, and certainly NOT as years.

Claiming that you get the “right” numerical value from an equation does not negate dimensional analysis. So you have not explained away the problem.

Carefully read the explanation of the role of Pi^21 and also the explanation offered about equation two, and why the answer of 13.778 can only be the distance units in billions of light years..

Your explanation makes no sense.

quote:

---

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..

---

Dynamic Aether framework? Really?