If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




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 
Ads 
#2




"Lyndon Ashmore" wrote...
in message ... 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 'Lo Lyndon  Actually, it's not even much of a coincidence is it? We all tend to age, to grow older. And as we grow older our ages coincide with other figures. For example, i recently turned 54 (yes, thanks, folks, for the nice thoughts). Now, in about 4½ years or so, my age in years will coincide with Mercury's rotational period in days! As you mention at www.lyndonashmore.com the Hubble Time is the reciprocal of the Hubble Constant. And the Hubble Time, the age of the Universe, is always getting older. If the electron has a rest mass, m, then i doubt that it changes much. And if it has a radius, r, then that most likely stays the same as well. The Planck constant, h? It *is* a constant, after all. To me this means that there was a time when your paradox had not yet happened, and there will come a time when it will no longer be. And like the coincidence that will take place in 4½ years between my age and Mercury's spin period, it has only a passing, fleeting significance... ....doesn't it? happy days and... starry starry nights!  Your heart up hanging on the wall Just dripping tears so painfully, You ne'er felt love so true as mine, I want your heart inside me. Protected from all manner, form And shape of harm it will e'er be, If you say no, I fade and die, I need your heart inside me. Paine Ellsworth 
#3




Greetings,
How do you know that your paradox will occur? Either you or Mars may not be here in 4 years time (though I truly hope you both are). My paradox is happening now. Also apart from yourself and the rottation of Mars both being in a spin, they are not related.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 and expansions come into it? "Painius" wrote in message ... "Lyndon Ashmore" wrote... in message ... 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 'Lo Lyndon  Actually, it's not even much of a coincidence is it? We all tend to age, to grow older. And as we grow older our ages coincide with other figures. For example, i recently turned 54 (yes, thanks, folks, for the nice thoughts). Now, in about 4½ years or so, my age in years will coincide with Mercury's rotational period in days! As you mention at www.lyndonashmore.com the Hubble Time is the reciprocal of the Hubble Constant. And the Hubble Time, the age of the Universe, is always getting older. If the electron has a rest mass, m, then i doubt that it changes much. And if it has a radius, r, then that most likely stays the same as well. The Planck constant, h? It *is* a constant, after all. To me this means that there was a time when your paradox had not yet happened, and there will come a time when it will no longer be. And like the coincidence that will take place in 4½ years between my age and Mercury's spin period, it has only a passing, fleeting significance... ...doesn't it? happy days and... starry starry nights!  Your heart up hanging on the wall Just dripping tears so painfully, You ne'er felt love so true as mine, I want your heart inside me. Protected from all manner, form And shape of harm it will e'er be, If you say no, I fade and die, I need your heart inside me. Paine Ellsworth 
#4




"Lyndon Ashmore" wrote...
in message ... Greetings, How do you know that your paradox will occur? Either you or Mars may not be here in 4 years time (though I truly hope you both are). My paradox is happening now. You mean Mercury? Anyway, it appears that you're missing the meaning of "paradox." Apparently, you are seeing this as a paradox because it happens to be happening in the age in which you live. May i ask... what happens tomorrow when the mass and radius of the electron and the Planck constant have not changed but the Hubble Time *has*? But say you are correct. Say that there actually *is* some significance to this coincidence. Can you describe this importance? this significance? Also apart from yourself and the rottation of Mars both being in a spin, they are not related. Unfortunately, i cannot see how the Hubble Time is related to the electron's mass and radius and Planck's constant. What are you seeing that i can't? 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. So if i hear you correctly, you are saying that as the Universe gets older and H decreases, there is something on the other side of the equation that must also change? that either Planck's constant and/or the radius of electrons must also decrease, or that the mass of electrons must increase? Where do all these bangs and expansions come into it? "Intuitive extrapolation" as the Old Coot, Bill Sheppard, calls it. This enables us to deduce what has happened based upon our observations of the Universe around us. Can you give some detail as to how you believe your paradox changes things and gets rid of the need for a Big Bangtype beginning followed by inflation and expansion of space? Please remember that it helps if you can explain why all the observations made thus far, which point to "bangs and expansions," point instead to something different based upon your "paradox." happy days and... starry starry nights!  Do you have yourself a dream? Are you burning with desire? If no dream, you have no steam To fan your ember into fire! Do you have yourself a dream? Paine Ellsworth 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Ashmore's Paradox  Lyndon Ashmore  Astronomy Misc  4  November 21st 03 02:44 PM 
Ashmore's Paradox  Lyndon Ashmore  UK Astronomy  0  November 14th 03 10:32 AM 
Fondation on Olbers' Paradox  telove  Astronomy Misc  1  August 28th 03 12:09 AM 
Foundation on Olbers' Paradox  telove  Astronomy Misc  0  August 26th 03 09:39 PM 