If I can derive Hubble's constant from nothing but c and the ageof the universe, would that be important?

On Jun 29, 10:58 pm, Faye Kane wrote:

Please give me a serious answer, because I think I know how. But I
don't want to bother doing the calculations if it's already been done.

Hubble’s constant is strictly a conjecture, and that should answer
your question. It was decided on what it means during Hubble’s time
where he could only see up to 500k parsecs at best. shrug

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:41:05 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Jun 29, 10:58 pm, Faye Kane wrote:

Please give me a serious answer, because I think I know how. But I
don't want to bother doing the calculations if it's already been done.

Hubble¢s constant is strictly a conjecture, and that should answer
your question. It was decided on what it means during Hubble¢s time
where he could only see up to 500k parsecs at best. shrug

What Hubble said is his initial data showed that the theory of the
expansion of the universe was correct. However, if you look at Hubble¢s
original released data, it does not really show the expansion of the
universe.

On Jul 1, 3:09*am, SolomonW wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:41:05 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 29, 10:58 pm, Faye Kane wrote:

Please give me a serious answer, because I think I know how. *But I
don't want to bother doing the calculations if it's already been done.

Hubble¢s constant is strictly a conjecture, and that should answer
your question. *It was decided on what it means during Hubble¢s time
where he could only see up to 500k parsecs at best. *shrug

What Hubble said is his initial data showed that the theory of the
expansion of the universe was correct. However, if you look at Hubble¢s
original released data, it does not really show the expansion of the
universe.

Red shift showing more reddining with distance is a bad ruler. Its off
by 40% at best. Reality is we need a better way to measure. Clair
Patterson gave the Earth its age by using radio active decay.It is
only off by 3% I have my own way of measuring the age of the universe.
It gives it 22 billion years,and counting. It goes against 13.5 given
by our imperial thinkers,so even knowing I'm on the money I get
laughed at. They fudge I never fudge I add up time lapses they
rather sweep under the rug. TreBert

Hubble didn't favor the expanding Universe;

http://etheric.com/Cosmology/redshift.html


߃--¹¹

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 07:46:28 -0700 (PDT), G=EMC^2 wrote:

On Jul 1, 3:09*am, SolomonW wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:41:05 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 29, 10:58 pm, Faye Kane wrote:

Please give me a serious answer, because I think I know how. *But I
don't want to bother doing the calculations if it's already been done.

Hubble¢s constant is strictly a conjecture, and that should answer
your question. *It was decided on what it means during Hubble¢s time
where he could only see up to 500k parsecs at best. *shrug

What Hubble said is his initial data showed that the theory of the
expansion of the universe was correct. However, if you look at Hubble¢s
original released data, it does not really show the expansion of the
universe.

Red shift showing more reddining with distance is a bad ruler. Its off
by 40% at best. Reality is we need a better way to measure. Clair
Patterson gave the Earth its age by using radio active decay.It is
only off by 3% I have my own way of measuring the age of the universe.
It gives it 22 billion years,and counting. It goes against 13.5 given
by our imperial thinkers,so even knowing I'm on the money I get
laughed at. They fudge I never fudge I add up time lapses they
rather sweep under the rug. TreBert


Well, the oldest object found is about 13 billion years old. That puts a
limit on how young the universe can be.

On Jul 2, 5:20*am, SolomonW wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 07:46:28 -0700 (PDT), G=EMC^2 wrote:
On Jul 1, 3:09*am, SolomonW wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:41:05 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 29, 10:58 pm, Faye Kane wrote:

Please give me a serious answer, because I think I know how. *But I
don't want to bother doing the calculations if it's already been done.

Hubble¢s constant is strictly a conjecture, and that should answer
your question. *It was decided on what it means during Hubble¢s time
where he could only see up to 500k parsecs at best. *shrug

What Hubble said is his initial data showed that the theory of the
expansion of the universe was correct. However, if you look at Hubble¢s
original released data, it does not really show the expansion of the
universe.

Red shift showing more reddining with distance is a bad ruler. Its off
by 40% at best. Reality is we need a better way to measure. Clair
Patterson gave the Earth its age by using radio active decay.It is
only off by 3% I have my own way of measuring the age of the universe.
It gives it 22 billion years,and counting. It goes against 13.5 given
by our imperial thinkers,so even knowing I'm on the money I get
laughed at. They fudge * I never fudge *I add up time lapses they
rather sweep under the rug. TreBert

Well, the oldest object found is about 13 billion years old. That puts a
limit on how young the universe can be.

If that oldest object found was a reflected image, then what?