A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ashmore's Paradox



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 14th 03, 10:29 AM
Lyndon Ashmore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 15th 03, 07:38 AM
Painius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
4 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 4 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  
Old November 21st 03, 01:04 PM
Lyndon Ashmore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
4 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 4 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  
Old November 22nd 03, 01:04 PM
Painius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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 Bang-type
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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.