# Calculating (fixing) Hubble's Constant precisely at 70.98047

## Recommended Posts

Hi, There is now a very simple way to calculate Hubble's Constant, by inputting to an equation, the numerical value of Pi and the speed of light (C) from Maxwell's equations and the value of a parsec. NO space probe measurements (with their inevitable small measuring / interpretation errors) are now required. Hubble's Constant is 'fixed' at 70.98047 PRECISELY. This maths method removes the errors / tolerances that is always a part of attempting to measuring something as 'elusive' as Hubble's Constant.

To save you labouring through Astrogeometry, the Hubble 'fixing' equation is :-    2 X by a meg parsec X by light speed (C). This is then divided by Pi to the power of 21.

This gives Hubble's Constant as 70.98047 kilometres per second per meg parsec precisely.

The reciprocal of 70.98047 is 13.778 billion light years. As 70.98047 never changes over time, 13.778 is not the age of the universe. It's simply 'The Hubble Horizon Distance'

The explanation and equation to perform this can be found in a book I've been told over and over again not to advertise here.

Edited by Phi for All

##### Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, David Hine said:

Hi, There is now a very simple way to calculate Hubble's Constant, by inputting to an equation, the numerical value of Pi and the speed of light (C) from Maxwell's equations and the value of a parsec. NO space probe measurements (with their inevitable small measuring / interpretation errors) are now required. Hubble's Constant is 'fixed' at 70.98047 PRECISELY. This maths method removes the errors / tolerances that is always a part of attempting to measuring something as 'elusive' as Hubble's Constant.

To save you labouring through Astrogeometry, the Hubble 'fixing' equation is :-    2 X by a meg parsec X by light speed (C). This is then divided by Pi to the power of 21.

This gives Hubble's Constant as 70.98047 kilometres per second per meg parsec precisely.

The reciprocal of 70.98047 is 13.778 billion light years. As 70.98047 never changes over time, 13.778 is not the age of the universe. It's simply 'The Hubble Horizon Distance'

The explanation and equation to perform this can be found in in a book I've been told over and over again not to advertise here

What would be your point? after googling hubble's constant your figures are pretty much the same as everyone else's. BTW advertising your book is against the rules...

##### Share on other sites

Moontanman, I forgot about the 'add' thing, So I apologise for that. The point is that this calculation now 'fixes' Hubble to its exact figure in modern metric units. It' very similar to when

Maxwell 'fixed' by maths light speed, C, while others measured it with rotating mirrors etc. The measuring methods (by default) will never exactly agree, but were near enough to prove we have the speed of light, and Maxwell got it right. Now we have Hubble's slightly varying measured values, and now its precise 'fixed' calculated value of 70.87047 kilometres per sec per meg parsec. That's the first point.

As 70.98047 never changes over time, its reciprocal of 13.778 billion light years is not the age of the universe, but 'The Hubble Horizon Distance' only. That's the second point, David.

I made a typo. Hubble is always 70.98047, David

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, David Hine said:

Moontanman, I forgot about the 'add' thing, So I apologise for that. The point is that this calculation now 'fixes' Hubble to its exact figure in modern metric units. It' very similar to when

Maxwell 'fixed' by maths light speed, C, while others measured it with rotating mirrors etc. The measuring methods (by default) will never exactly agree, but were near enough to prove we have the speed of light, and Maxwell got it right. Now we have Hubble's slightly varying measured values, and now its precise 'fixed' calculated value of 70.87047 kilometres per sec per meg parsec. That's the first point.

As 70.98047 never changes over time, its reciprocal of 13.778 billion light years is not the age of the universe, but 'The Hubble Horizon Distance' only. That's the second point, David.

How does the acceleration of the expansion of the universe relate to your hypothesis?

If I understand the link correctly the hubble horizon is known not to be the age of the universe and the current estimate is about 16 billion light years.

##### Share on other sites

It does not relate because it's simply not happening. The latest Planck result takes it down from 73.52 to now 67. Going downwards the other way!!! Certainly not speeding up!! Purely acceptable measuring errors. They get it roughly right, but this proves measuring it is never exact. It cannot ever be. The calculated 70.98047 is the exact unchanging Hubble value, David.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Hine said:

It does not relate because it's simply not happening. The latest Planck result takes it down from 73.52 to now 67. Going downwards the other way!!! Certainly not speeding up!! Purely acceptable measuring errors. They get it roughly right, but this proves measuring it is never exact. It cannot ever be. The calculated 70.98047 is the exact unchanging Hubble value, David.

How do you explain observations that indicate the expansion is accelerating? See the link above. I know the radius of the universe is thought to be 46 billion light years.

Quote

The observable universe is a spherical region of the Universe comprising all matter that can be observed from Earth at the present time, because electromagnetic radiation from these objects has had time to reach Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion. There are at least 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe.[7][8] Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in each direction. That is, the observable universe is a sphericalvolume (a ball) centered on the observer. Every location in the universe has its own observable universe, which may or may not overlap with the one centered on Earth.

The word observable in this sense does not refer to the capability of modern technology to detect light or other information from an object, or whether there is anything to be detected. It refers to the physical limit created by the speed of light itself. Because no signals can travel faster than light, any object farther away from us than light could travel in the age of the universe (estimated as of 2015 around 13.799±0.021 billion years[5]) simply cannot be detected, as they have not reached us yet. Sometimes astrophysicists distinguish between the visible universe, which includes only signals emitted since recombination—and the observable universe, which includes signals since the beginning of the cosmological expansion (the Big Bang in traditional physical cosmology, the end of the inflationary epoch in modern cosmology).

##### Share on other sites

Moontanman -Hi there. I would never put myself at odds with what the Astronomers observe. Those guys really know their stuff, and have the amazing telescopes and facilities etc..

When Hubble first noticed the Hubble expansion way back in the 1920's, his constant was ten measured to be around 500. As measuring techniques improved, these now give very close results to the calculated Hubble Constant of 70.98047. I doubt very much if any further improvements will happen, and will always see slight + / - Hubble values measured. I believe different methods are used, and with other inevitable small variations that happen when measuring Hubble, it will always be + / - of 70.98047.

This is very similar to physically measuring light speed, with Maxwell's equations 'fixing' C to the value now accepted as it's truth. Today, no one disputes this.

Where we are going wrong today with Hubble is in the 'interpretation' of measured and calculated data. If 'interpretations' are based on a fake model ('big bang'), nothing else will make proper sense, and fake (incorrect) models have to be constantly 'fudged' when new data comes in. A good example of this is the 'introduction' of 'hypothesised' dark matter and energy that no one will ever find, because they are purely 'science fiction' introduced in order to fit new more precise observations into the incorrect big bang model.

Best regards, David Hine

Hi. It's interesting that fixing Hubble's Constant has been moved to 'Speculations'. I am not disputing that, but to be properly 'scientific', so should the 'big bang' speculation.

If it is not, I will feel at liberty to post in the cosmology section that carries 'big bang' speculations.

Can anyone show 'big bang' is purely 'speculative?? David Hine. (my real name)

Also, why do posters here hide behind 'aliases'?? We do this on Pirate Radio forums for obvious reasons, but why on a science forum?? Are they scared of being identified by other scientists?

David

Sorry, I meant to say (typo) "Can anyone show 'big bang' is not simply pure speculation? David

##### Share on other sites

Hi, I raised the subject recently in the cosmology section showing that Hubble's Constant can now be calculated to be an unchanging and 'fixed' 70.98047 kilometres per sec per meg parsec.

This has been pushed, without my awareness, to the 'speculations' area. I am not directly objecting to that, BUT does anyone here realise the 'big bang' model is also purely and extremely 'speculative'???? None of it is proven fact, and increasingly has to be 'fudged' to fit in with new data that the Astronomers are observing. Hence 'dark' matter / energy -fake concepts to 'balance the fake books of 'big bang'!!  That's NOT science in any way, but purely 'speculation', proving scientists do not understand very much about the universe, and certainly not its origin.

So my request, for this (to be a properly truthful scientific forum), anything to do with the 'big bang' hypothesis should also be moved to 'speculations'. To do that would take courage, but would earn great respect in the future when the 'big bang' hypothesis is finally consigned to the 'science bin of follies'.

Regards, David

##### Share on other sites

The Hubble Parameter is decreasing gradually over time, this involves the evolution of matter, radiation and cosmological mass density. For example at z=1090 the Hubble parameter is 22,916 times greater than it is today. It is a consequence of expansion and its influence upon density of the aforementioned contributors.

You can see its evolution in the H_o/H column here

${\small\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline T_{Ho} (Gy) & T_{H\infty} (Gy) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}$ ${\small\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline S&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 1090.000&0.000373&0.000628&45.331596&0.041589&0.056714&21.023&22915.263\\ \hline 608.566&0.000979&0.001594&44.853035&0.073703&0.100794&14.843&9032.833\\ \hline 339.773&0.002496&0.003956&44.183524&0.130038&0.178562&10.712&3639.803\\ \hline 189.701&0.006228&0.009680&43.263304&0.228060&0.314971&7.842&1487.678\\ \hline 105.913&0.015309&0.023478&42.012463&0.396668&0.552333&5.791&613.344\\ \hline 59.133&0.037266&0.056657&40.323472&0.681908&0.960718&4.298&254.163\\ \hline 33.015&0.090158&0.136321&38.051665&1.152552&1.651928&3.200&105.633\\ \hline 18.433&0.217283&0.327417&35.002842&1.898930&2.793361&2.386&43.981\\ \hline 10.291&0.522342&0.785104&30.917756&3.004225&4.606237&1.782&18.342\\ \hline 5.746&1.252327&1.874042&25.458852&4.430801&7.300157&1.337&7.684\\ \hline 3.208&2.977691&4.373615&18.247534&5.688090&10.827382&1.026&3.292\\ \hline 1.791&6.817286&9.184553&9.242569&5.160286&14.365254&0.875&1.568\\ \hline 1.000&13.787206&14.399932&0.000000&0.000000&16.472274&1.000&1.000\\ \hline 0.558&22.979870&16.668843&6.932899&12.417487&17.112278&1.547&0.864\\ \hline 0.338&31.510659&17.154169&10.671781&31.602098&17.220415&2.486&0.839\\ \hline 0.204&40.170941&17.267296&12.969607&63.498868&17.267296&4.083&0.834\\ \hline 0.124&48.860612&17.292739&14.364429&116.275356&17.292739&6.741&0.833\\ \hline 0.075&57.557046&17.298283&15.208769&203.541746&17.298283&11.141&0.832\\ \hline 0.045&66.254768&17.299620&15.719539&347.823873&17.299620&18.418&0.832\\ \hline 0.027&74.952986&17.299815&16.028491&586.370846&17.299815&30.451&0.832\\ \hline 0.017&83.651102&17.299968&16.215356&980.768127&17.299968&50.345&0.832\\ \hline 0.010&92.349407&17.299900&16.328381&1632.838131&17.299900&83.237&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}$

At the S=1.000 is the value today in normalized to 1 unit, the calculator is setup for a previous dataset from Planck I didn't bother changing the input parameters as I am simply demonstrating how Hubble constant evolves over time. The parameters in the left box is what determines the value of the Hubble constant. The $H=\dot{a}{a}$ of commoving volumes is merely an approximation. Not the methodology that is used by Planck or WMAP. I will get the more accurate formula later on after work.

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites

Interesting, so why does Adam Riess and his special team at NASA say the Hubble acceleration is now speeding up?? It's the Hubble expansion and acceleration rate they are monitoring, not some ancient history that cannot be verified, as no one was there. So is Adam Riess and NASA peddling fake science???? David

Real and properly measured Hubble rates are documented on Wikipedia in a Hubble Constant Chart. That has immensely more 'positive' meaning that guess work theoretical hypothetic chart, David

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, David Hine said:

Moontanman -Hi there. I would never put myself at odds with what the Astronomers observe. Those guys really know their stuff, and have the amazing telescopes and facilities etc..

When Hubble first noticed the Hubble expansion way back in the 1920's, his constant was ten measured to be around 500. As measuring techniques improved, these now give very close results to the calculated Hubble Constant of 70.98047. I doubt very much if any further improvements will happen, and will always see slight + / - Hubble values measured. I believe different methods are used, and with other inevitable small variations that happen when measuring Hubble, it will always be + / - of 70.98047.

This is very similar to physically measuring light speed, with Maxwell's equations 'fixing' C to the value now accepted as it's truth. Today, no one disputes this.

Where we are going wrong today with Hubble is in the 'interpretation' of measured and calculated data. If 'interpretations' are based on a fake model ('big bang'), nothing else will make proper sense, and fake (incorrect) models have to be constantly 'fudged' when new data comes in. A good example of this is the 'introduction' of 'hypothesised' dark matter and energy that no one will ever find, because they are purely 'science fiction' introduced in order to fit new more precise observations into the incorrect big bang model.

Best regards, David Hine

Hi. It's interesting that fixing Hubble's Constant has been moved to 'Speculations'. I am not disputing that, but to be properly 'scientific', so should the 'big bang' speculation.

If it is not, I will feel at liberty to post in the cosmology section that carries 'big bang' speculations.

Can anyone show 'big bang' is purely 'speculative?? David Hine. (my real name)

Also, why do posters here hide behind 'aliases'?? We do this on Pirate Radio forums for obvious reasons, but why on a science forum?? Are they scared of being identified by other scientists?

David

Sorry, I meant to say (typo) "Can anyone show 'big bang' is not simply pure speculation? David

Many would agree that the common interpretation of the BB is a bit speculative but the actual BB theory only says the universe appears to be expanding from a hot dense state nothing more. Do you have a more accurate explanation of the data we have so far?

My real name is Charles Michael Hissom, when the internet first started we picked names based on nick names much like CB handles. I don't know why this caught on to the extent it has but no hidden agenda is being pursued by me.

##### Share on other sites

Hi Charles, In reality, no one in secular science has any clue about the early universe, and how it came into existence. The 'big bang' is not the truth -it fails dismally at every new challenge, so has to be constantly 'fudged' as more data comes in from the Astronomers. Non existent dark matter etc., and 'god particle' nonsense is the latest 'cheating' in this ever continuing saga of 'big bang' lies. When will these bb lies stop??

Until something 'better' comes along (very unlikely), we only have the Creation account as handed to Moses by Jesus, as described in The Torah. As a Jew, I firmly believe The Word of God (Jesus), and I know by faith it's the true explanation. The Hubble 70.98047 stuff is a direct revelation of this. The Torah is intensely mathematical, and this maths is also to be found in all the sciences. Even the electrochemical series and atomic theory has this same interconnecting maths framework basis. Pi is a very very special Constant,  that embraces and describes 'space time' precisely, and so is found in most maths describing real dynamic scientific situations. That is not by chance. We call this way of thinking, Gematria. David

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, David Hine said:

Hi Charles, In reality, no one in secular science has any clue about the early universe, and how it came into existence. The 'big bang' is not the truth -it fails dismally at every new challenge, so has to be constantly 'fudged' as more data comes in from the Astronomers. Non existent dark matter etc., and 'god particle' nonsense is the latest 'cheating' in this ever continuing saga of 'big bang' lies. When will these bb lies stop??

Until something 'better' comes along (very unlikely), we only have the Creation account as handed to Moses by Jesus, as described in The Torah. As a Jew, I firmly believe The Word of God (Jesus), and I know by faith it's the true explanation. The Hubble 70.98047 stuff is a direct revelation of this. The Torah is intensely mathematical, and this maths is also to be found in all the sciences. Even the electrochemical series and atomic theory has this same interconnecting maths framework basis. Pi is a very very special Constant,  that embraces and describes 'space time' precisely, and so is found in most maths describing real dynamic scientific situations. That is not by chance. We call this way of thinking, Gematria. David

Ok, your reply was OT big time but I will reply, the Bible is wrong about everything it asserts about the natural world that can be tested, we know the account of creation cannot be true and to suggest it is because it was written by bigoted, genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic, bronze age goat herders is indefensible..

BTW. the bible specifically states that Pi is equal to three.. oh yeah divine accuracy..

Edited by Moontanman

##### Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Hey, one speculation at a time. Please don't introduce a religious argument into the scientific one, or this discussion will be worthless.

If you want to discuss something religious, put it in the proper section.

##### Share on other sites

Moontanman. Congratulations. You have just blasphemed Moses, and the Holy Spirit in public. You must repent your sins to Jesus. You are a 'fool' to pit your 2 puny brain cells against the Creator of all things.  Your stupidity does not amaze me, as it's Satan controlling you. I've seen this thousands of times when 'Satan's puppets' all come out with the same nonsense!!! -Not even original!! If you repent, Satan will be powerless against you.

Scientific 'knowledge cuts no ice' with Jesus on the Judgement, and science is the domain of Satan, especially when it's corrupted with evolution nonsense.

##### Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

OP clearly doesn't want to discuss science so thread closed.

You may not reintroduce this topic in our forum.

If you disagree with this decision you may report this post for other mods to review.

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×