Ashmore's Paradox

Ashmore's Paradox. 14/11/03
I would like to post a result that was thrown up in my research.
Why is the Hubble constant the same as 'hr/m per cubic metre of space'?
For each cubic metre of space, take the planck constant, multiply it by the
classical radius of the electron then divide by the rest mass of the
electron.
This gives you 2.1exp(-18) per sec.
Change this to astronomical units and you get 64 km/sec per megaparsec - the
Hubble constant as measured by Reiss, Press, Kirshner in 1996.
In Kirshner's book 'The Extravagant Universe' he says that all recent values
of H lie in the range 70 +/- 7 km/s per Mpc. Thus, all values of H lie in
the range (1.1 +/- 0.1) hr/m per unit metre of space.
If this is pure coincidence then it a very remarkable one indeed.
For more information visit my website at www.lyndonashmore.com

Lyndon Ashmore wrote:

Ashmore's Paradox. 14/11/03
I would like to post a result that was thrown up in my research.
Why is the Hubble constant the same as 'hr/m per cubic metre of space'?
For each cubic metre of space, take the planck constant, multiply it by the
classical radius of the electron then divide by the rest mass of the
electron.
This gives you 2.1exp(-18) per sec.
Change this to astronomical units and you get 64 km/sec per megaparsec

Coincidence.


- the Hubble constant as measured by Reiss, Press, Kirshner in 1996.

Did you notice that there is still an error on the size of 5-10%, and
that a newer value is more around 70 km/s/Mpc?


In Kirshner's book 'The Extravagant Universe' he says that all recent values
of H lie in the range 70 +/- 7 km/s per Mpc.

Could be true, although I think that the error has become smaller in the
last years.


Thus, all values of H lie in
the range (1.1 +/- 0.1) hr/m per unit metre of space.
If this is pure coincidence then it a very remarkable one indeed.

No. Why do you think so? If one plays around with some physical
constants (especially if one totally arbitraly divides by "one cubic
meter" or something like that), one will often get results like this.
See, for example
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agnosticscorner/message/50


For more information visit my website at www.lyndonashmore.com

No, thanks.


Bye,
Bjoern

Quite agree,
Just the result of combining completely unrelated quantities to
achieve the required result.

A great deal of serious effort is being expended in unifying the laws of
physics.

Why bother, if we can do it in a simple one off...

dog/3 + 2/3cod =...

Greetings,
I agree too, but hang on a minute, consider this...
Just forget, for a moment, what these Big Bang Codsmologists have been
telling us and lets look what the experimental evidence says.
The Hubble constant is found by measuring the redshift in light from distant
galaxies.
The redshift is found by measuring the shift in absorption lines in the
spectra of this light.
These absorption lines are caused by electrons in atoms in the space around
stars etc. taking this light and absorbing photons of certain energies.
The energy of these absorbed photons is proportional to their frequency and
the constant of proportionality is the planck constant.
Ashmore's paradox tells us that measured values of H are exactly equal to
the (planck constant)x(radius of electron)/(mass of electron) in each cubic
metre of space.
Where do all these bangs andl expansions come into it?
However I have updated the website www.lyndonashmore.com in view of your
comments.
Regards,Lyndon.
P.S. Is it dog star Cyrius divided by three added to 2/3(CODsmology)

"mike cook" wrote in message
...
Quite agree,
Just the result of combining completely unrelated quantities to
achieve the required result.

A great deal of serious effort is being expended in unifying the laws of
physics.

Why bother, if we can do it in a simple one off...

dog/3 + 2/3cod =...

Why don't you just build the thing? Doesn't look too complicated. Then
you can see if it works or not?