Lyndon:

What do the terms, i.e., "“", mean?

Ralph Hertle





lyndonashmore wrote:

Thanks for the question Edward,
The Hubble constant is not a measure of velocity. Never was, never will be. Don’t believe all the hype these codsmologists tell you. Absorption lines in the light from distant galaxies shift towards the red end of the spectrum the further light travels. The Hubble constant is just a measure of that.
Hubble himself was never a promoter of the expanding universe preferring ‘tired light’ models (as per my theory) where light looses energy as it travels along. The Hubble constant is a “1/(time)" i.e. a "per second” not a " velocity" i.e. a "m/s". I can assure you (you can work it out for yourself)that the Hubble constant and my constant “hr/m per cubic metre of space” are the same in every respect.
That is why the Big Bang theory must be wrong. No way can the two constants be identical by coincidence and no way can the age of the Universe be the same as a combination of parameters of the electron.
As to how I work this out will have to wait I am afraid. If I put the theory on the Internet they won’t consider it in the academic press, where it is now.
The Big Bang theory is wrong and ‘ashmore’s paradox’ shows it is wrong.
Unless anyone out there would like to explain the paradox?

"Edward C. Otto III" wrote:


Just a question:

How can a measurement of velocity (Hubble Constant) be related to a
measurement of mass (your constant)?

"lyndonashmore" ashmore





----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals