UNKNOWN.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> UNKNOWN.

First, lets look at the Timeline...

you got Hubble himself
comes up with a
'off the cuff' number..500.

H=500

Which gives the age of the universe...
2 billion years.

if the
facts don't fit
the theory...
change the facts?

dats science for you.

Makes Earth order than the universe.

So, What is the age of the universe?

(just change the numbers until you get pass earth's age)

dats science for you.

Age of the Universe? UNKNOWN

Looks like to me like another Drake's Equation fraud...

>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:19:43 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > UNKNOWN.
>
>
> First, lets look at the Timeline...
>
> you got Hubble himself
> comes up with a
> 'off the cuff' number..500.
>
> H=500
>
> Which gives the age of the universe...
> 2 billion years.
>
>
> if the
> facts don't fit
> the theory...
> change the facts?
>
> dats science for you.
>
> Makes Earth order than the universe.
>
>
> So, What is the age of the universe?
>
> (just change the numbers until you get pass earth's age)
>
>
> dats science for you.
>
>
> Age of the Universe? UNKNOWN
>
>
>
> Looks like to me like another Drake's Equation fraud...
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

THE HUBBLE CONSTANT
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/

Ho: 500 -----------------> Age (million of years): 1,852 (Hubble, by 1929)
Age of Earth (million of years): 3,000 (mid '30s, by radioactive dating of rocks)

Ho: 180 -----------------> Age (million of years): 5,143 (Humason, Mayall and Sandage,1956)
Ho: 75 -----------------> Age (million of years): 12,344 (Sandage,1958)
Age of Earth (million of years): 3,000 (mid '30s, by radioactive dating of rocks)

Ho: 55 -----------------> Age (million of years): 16,833 (Sandage, Tammann , early '70s)

Ho: 67.66 -------------> Age (million of years): 13,683 (Planck mission published in 2018)
Ho: 74.03 --------------> Age (million of years): 12,506 (Hubble Space Telescope, 2019)

https://www.livescience.com/32321-how-is-earths-age-calculated.html

"It was not until the 1950s that the age of the universe was finally revised and put safely beyond the age of
the Earth, which had at last reached its true age of 4.56 billion years," Lewis said. "Physicists suddenly gained
a new respect for geologists."

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:19:43 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > UNKNOWN.
> >
> >
> > First, lets look at the Timeline...
> >
> > you got Hubble himself
> > comes up with a
> > 'off the cuff' number..500.
> >
> > H=500
> >
> > Which gives the age of the universe...
> > 2 billion years.
> >
> >
> > if the
> > facts don't fit
> > the theory...
> > change the facts?
> >
> > dats science for you.
> >
> > Makes Earth order than the universe.
> >
> >
> > So, What is the age of the universe?
> >
> > (just change the numbers until you get pass earth's age)
> >
> >
> > dats science for you.
> >
> >
> > Age of the Universe? UNKNOWN
> >
> >
> >
> > Looks like to me like another Drake's Equation fraud...
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > > the unchallengeable.
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
> THE HUBBLE CONSTANT
> https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/
>
> Ho: 500 -----------------> Age (million of years): 1,852 (Hubble, by 1929)
> Age of Earth (million of years): 3,000 (mid '30s, by radioactive dating of rocks)
>
> Ho: 180 -----------------> Age (million of years): 5,143 (Humason, Mayall and Sandage,1956)
> Ho: 75 -----------------> Age (million of years): 12,344 (Sandage,1958)
> Age of Earth (million of years): 3,000 (mid '30s, by radioactive dating of rocks)
>
> Ho: 55 -----------------> Age (million of years): 16,833 (Sandage, Tammann , early '70s)
>
>
> Ho: 67.66 -------------> Age (million of years): 13,683 (Planck mission published in 2018)
> Ho: 74.03 --------------> Age (million of years): 12,506 (Hubble Space Telescope, 2019)
>
> https://www.livescience.com/32321-how-is-earths-age-calculated.html
>
> "It was not until the 1950s that the age of the universe was finally revised and put safely beyond the age of
> the Earth, which had at last reached its true age of 4.56 billion years," Lewis said. "Physicists suddenly gained
> a new respect for geologists."

Well it looks like they are playing ping-pong with the numbers...

https://www.space.com/universe-age-14-billion-years-old

What would be the Ho for 14 billion? 65??

How about a game of chess?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:19:43 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > UNKNOWN.
> > >
> > >
> > > First, lets look at the Timeline...
> > >
> > > you got Hubble himself
> > > comes up with a
> > > 'off the cuff' number..500.
> > >
> > > H=500
> > >
> > > Which gives the age of the universe...
> > > 2 billion years.
> > >
> > >
> > > if the
> > > facts don't fit
> > > the theory...
> > > change the facts?
> > >
> > > dats science for you.
> > >
> > > Makes Earth order than the universe.
> > >
> > >
> > > So, What is the age of the universe?
> > >
> > > (just change the numbers until you get pass earth's age)
> > >
> > >
> > > dats science for you.
> > >
> > >
> > > Age of the Universe? UNKNOWN
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Looks like to me like another Drake's Equation fraud...
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > > > the unchallengeable.
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > > the unchallengeable.
> >
> > THE HUBBLE CONSTANT
> > https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/
> >
> > Ho: 500 -----------------> Age (million of years): 1,852 (Hubble, by 1929)
> > Age of Earth (million of years): 3,000 (mid '30s, by radioactive dating of rocks)
> >
> > Ho: 180 -----------------> Age (million of years): 5,143 (Humason, Mayall and Sandage,1956)
> > Ho: 75 -----------------> Age (million of years): 12,344 (Sandage,1958)
> > Age of Earth (million of years): 3,000 (mid '30s, by radioactive dating of rocks)
> >
> > Ho: 55 -----------------> Age (million of years): 16,833 (Sandage, Tammann , early '70s)
> >
> >
> > Ho: 67.66 -------------> Age (million of years): 13,683 (Planck mission published in 2018)
> > Ho: 74.03 --------------> Age (million of years): 12,506 (Hubble Space Telescope, 2019)
> >
> > https://www.livescience.com/32321-how-is-earths-age-calculated.html
> >
> > "It was not until the 1950s that the age of the universe was finally revised and put safely beyond the age of
> > the Earth, which had at last reached its true age of 4.56 billion years," Lewis said. "Physicists suddenly gained
> > a new respect for geologists."
>
> Well it looks like they are playing ping-pong with the numbers...
>
> https://www.space.com/universe-age-14-billion-years-old
>
> What would be the Ho for 14 billion? 65??

Ho errors Date Type Source (Date = preprint or pub or appearance at conference)

50 +2 -2 1996.00 AS Tammann, G. \& Sandage, A. 1996in IAU Symp 168, {\it Examining the Black Body and Diffuse Background Raduation}, M. Kafatos, ed. (Dordrecht: Kluwer) p163.
77 +22 -2 1996.02 AV VandenBergh, S. 1996, in IAU Symp 168, {\it Examining the Black Body and Diffuse Background Raduation}, M. Kafatos, ed. (Dordrecht: Kluwer) p157. Wierd limits
56 +5 -5 1996.05 OS Sandage, A. 1996, AJ 111, 1. Spiral Luminosity Functions
55 +5 -5 1996.07 OS Sandage, A. 1996, AJ 111, 18. M31+M101 look alikes.
55 +10 -10 1996.10 AS Tammann, G., Labhardt, L., Federspiel, M.
84 +4 -4 1996.143 PK Ford, H. \etal 1996, ApJ 458, 455
76 +8 -8 1996.15 O Zasov 1996, AstronLett 22, 71 Theory, Disk Stability
67 +9 -9 1996.17 S Hoeflich, P. \& Khokhlov, A. 1996, ApJ 457, 500. SN Theory
57 +4 -4 1996.220 SS Sandage, A. \etal 1996, ApJL 460, L15. N4639 + six Ia's
65 +8 -8 1996.25 S Hendry \& Kanbur 1996, in Mapping, Measuring and Modeling the Universe, Coles \etal eds, ASP \#94, p357.
55 +3 -3 1996.26 S Schaefer, B. 1996, ApJL 460, L19. SN 1960F
57 +4 -4 1996.333 S Schaefer, B. 1996, AJ 111, 1668 SN1937C
40 +10 -10 1996.375 Z Lasenby \& Jones 1997, in CDS, Livio \etal eds (Cambridge: Cambridge) p76.
70 +5 -5 1996.377 R Giovanelli, R. 1997, in in CDS, Livio \etal eds (Cambridge: Cambridge) p113
60 +3 -3 1996.379 SS Saha, A. 1997, in CDS, Livio \etal eds (Cambridge: Cambridge) p128
54 +4 -4 1996.381 SS Tammann, G. \& Federspeil, M. 1997, in CDS, Livio \etal eds (Cambridge: Cambridge) p137.
73 +10 -10 1996.383 TK Mould \etal 1997, in CDS, Livio \etal eds (Cambridge: Cambridge) p7158
73 +10 -10 1996.385 TK Freedman, W. Madore, B. \& Kennicutt, R. 1997, in CDS, Livio \etal eds (Cambridge: Cambridge) p7171
74 +11 -11 1996.380 TK Bureau, M., Mould, J. \& Staveley-Smith, L. 1996, ApJ 463, 60. TF to Fornax
82 +13 -13 1996.387 G Whitmore, B. 1997, in CDS, Livio \etal eds (Cambridge: Cambridge) p7254
81 +6 -6 1996.389 F Tonry, J. 1997, in CDS, Livio \etal eds (Cambridge: Cambridge) p7297*
62 +9 -9 1996.44 GS Sandage, A. \& Tammann, G. 1996, ApJ 464, L51 GCLF Virgo
85 +10 -13 1996.444 L Grogin, N. \& Narayan, R. 1996, ApJ 464, 92 (0957+561)
60 +10 -10 1996.48 A Gouguemheim, L. \etal 1996, Rev Mod Astr 9, 127.
55 +10 -10 1996.50 AS Tammann, G. 1996, Rev Mod Astr 9, 139.
68 +7 -7 1996.53 S Ruiz La Puente, P. 1996, ApJ 465 83. % SnI Theory
56 +3 -3 1996.554 SS Saha, A. \etal 1996, ApJ 466, 55. N4536.
73 +7 -7 1996.58 2 Eastman, R., Schmidt, B. \& Kirshner, R. 1996, ApJ 466, 911. % SnII
69 +8 -8 1996.667 A Amendola A&A 312,353. % summary
72 +10 -12 1996.68 G Forbes, D. AJ 112, 954. % GCLF N4365
57 +5 -5 1996.78 S Branch, D. \etal 1996, ApJ 470, 7. % SnI
63 +12 -12 1996.84 L Kundic, Turner \etal 0957 G Lens
51 +14 -13 1996.89 L Keeton and Kochanek, Astroph199611216v2 PG1115+080
58 +9 -9 1996.91 O Sofue \etal 191996, PASJ 48, 657 (CO TF relation)
55 +5 -5 1996.92 SS Sandage, A. \& Tammann, G. in {\it Critical Dialogues in Cosmology}, N. Turok, ed (Singapore: World Scientific) p., Astroph199611170
73 +10 -10 1996.92 AK Freedman. W. 1997, in {\it Critical Dialogues in Cosmology}, N. Turok, ed (Singapore: World Scientific) p92., Astroph199612024
63 +3 -3 1996.92 S Hamuy, M. \etal 1996, AJ 112, 2398. SnI
65 +8 -8 1996.93 GK Forbes, D., Brodie, J. \& Huchra, J. 1996, AJ 112, 2448, GCLF N5846
55 +10 -10 1996.93 AS Tammann, G. 1996, PASP 108, 1083. A Discourse.
72 +6 -9 1996.94 AV Van den Bergh, S. 1996, PASP 108, 1091
70 +10 -10 1996.95 Z Kobayashi \etal PASJ 48, L107 SZ- Summary
98 +12 -11 1996.96 L Grogin, N. \& Narayan, R. 1996, ApJ 473, 570 (0957+561 erratum)
72 +12 -12 1996.97 H Malhotra, Spergel and Rhodes ApJ 473, 687
58 +7 -8 1996.98 SS Saha, A. \etal 1996, ApJ 486, 1, 1997. N4639 SnI
55 +10 -10 1997.00 AS Sandage \& Tammann 1997, Critical Dialogues in Cosmology, N Turok, ed (Singapore: World Scientific) p130.
93 +12 -10 1997.01 O Chiba, M. \& Yoshi, Y. 1997, in Origin f Matter and Evolution of galaxies, Kajino \etal eds, World Scientific, p137. Disk Structure
70 +7 -7 1997.02 D Hjorth & Tanvir , N.1997, ApJ 482, 68. Astroph9701025
67 +8 -8 1997.02 D Hjorth & Tanvir 1997, ApJ 482, 68. Astroph9701025
68 +6 -6 1997.03 G Baum, W. \etal AJ in press GCLF to Coma (also BAAS28, 1288)
73 +8 -8 1997.04 TK Madore \etal Fornax BAAS 28 1420
67 +9 -9 1997.05 S Hoeflich, P. \etal SnI Theory BAAS 189 451
64 +20 -22 1997.06 L Schechter, P. \etal Grav lens 1997 ApJ 475, 85 1115+080
81 +6 -6 1997.08 F Tonry, J. \etal SBF 1997 ApJ 475 399
80 +8 -9 1997.09 SV vandenBergh, S. 1997, in {\it The Evolution of the Universe}, G. B\"orner \& S. Gottl\"ober, eds. (New York: Wiley) pg 35.
74 +5 -5 1997.10 S Ellis, G. F. R. 1997, in {\it The Evolution of the Universe}, G. B\"orner \& S. Gottl\"ober, eds. (New York: Wiley) pg 50.
82 +10 -10 1997.11 B Yasuda, Fukugita & Okamura BTF in Virgo ApJS 108, 417
68 +8 -8 1997.13 T Shanks, T. preprint
62 +7 -7 1997.137 L Falco, E. \etal ApJ in press. Astroph9702152. 0957 lens
92 +12 -12 1997.15 O Bizyaev, D. Astronom. Zhurnal 74, 172 (1997) Spiral Disks
69 +5 -5 1997.17 R Giovanelli, R. \etal ApJ 477, L1 ITF
75 +6 -6 1997.18 D Gregg, M. 1997, New Astron 1, 363. Astroph 9703031 Leo/Coma Fund Plane
69 +8 -8 1997.19 A Kochanek, C. Astroph 9703059 SnI + new Cephs
74 +14 -14 1997.21 rK Sakai, S. \etal 1997, ApJ 478, 49 Leo RGB
68 +3 -3 1997.225 SI Kirshner, R. 1997, Irvine PNAS SN I and II
70 +10 -10 1997.230 AKI Freedman, W. 1997, Irvine PNAS Summary, Ho Key Project Team
67 +3 -3 1997.235 CI Bond, R. 1997, Irvine CMB Spectrum
65 +10 -10 1997.240 LI Narayan, R. 1997, Irvine PNAS Lenses
60 +10 -10 1997.245 ZI Carlstrom, J. 1997, Irvine PNAS SZ
58 +10 -5 1997.25 A Hoyle, F., Burbidge, G. \& Narlikar, J. 1997, MNRAS 286, 173 summary
65 +16 -16 1997.306 L Oscoz, A. \etal ApJL 479, L92. 0957 G Lens
52 +6 -6 1997.333 O Goodwin, Gribbin & Hendry Astroph 9704289. Diameters
78 +60 -40 1997.360 Z Holzapfel, W. \etal ApJ 480, 449. SZ on A2163
52 +14 -14 1997.368 L Kundic \etal Astroph9704109, PG1115+080
53 +10 -7 1997.371 L Courbin \etal A&A in press. Astroph9705093. PG1115+080 Lens
66 +5 -5 1997.376 S Wheeler, J. \& H\"oflich, P. 1998, Rev.Mex A\&A Conf. Series 7, 73. 65.73 km/s/Mpc ...
71 +11 -11 1997.384 F Thomsen, B., Baum, W., Hammergren, M. & Worthy, G. 1997, ApJL 483, L37. Coma SBF
55 +5 -5 1997.4 B Theureau, G. 1997, J. Astron. Francais 55, 57. B Band TF
44 +7 -7 1997.41 Z Rephaeli, Y. \& Yankovich, D. 1997, ApJL 481, L55. Relativistic Corrections to SZ lower H0
60 +2 -2 1997.42 O Witasse, O. \& Paturel, G. 1997, A\&A 321, 10. Sosies. Internal error only
70 +10 -10 1997.436 TK Freedman 1997, in 18th Texas Symposium, Olinto, Frieman and Schramm eds (Singapore: World Scientific) (Astroph9706072)
54 +14 -14 1997.220 Z Myers, S., Baker, J., Readhead, A. Leitch, E. \& Herbig, T. 1997, ApJ 485, 1. % Astroph9703123, OVRO preprint 97-6. SZ in A478, A2142 and A2256
53 +5 -5 1997.50 B Theureau, G. \etal 1997, A\&A 322, 730. via magnitudes
57 +5 -5 1997.50 B Theureau, G. \etal 1997, A\&A 322, 730. via diamters
50 +20 -20 1997.625 C Hancock \etal Astroph9708254, CMB Fluct MNRAS 294, L1 (1998)
89 +10 -10 1997.659 F Lauer \etal 1998, ApJ 499, 577. Astroph9708252. Far field H0, clusters
82 +8 -8 1997.661 F Lauer \etal 1998, ApJ 499, 577. " " " BCG's
53 +3 -3 1997.667 O Sciama 1997, MNRAS 289,945 (decaying neutrino theory)
66 +12 -12 1997.70 S Iwamoto, K. \& Nomoto, K. 1997, in IUA Symp 183, Cosmological Paramters and the Evolution of the Universe.. SN Theory
61 +9 -9 1997.689 L Williams & Schechter Astroph9709059 Lensing
56 +7 -7 1997.750 SS Sandage & Tammann, Hipparcos+SnI preprint
57 +5 -5 1997.8 B Theureau, G. \etal 1997, in IAU Symp 183.
50 +3 -3 1997.944 S Lanoix, 1998, A\&A 331, 421. Astroph9712137
65 +10 -10 1997.958 S Hendry, M. 1997, Observatory 117, 329. Summary of "How Far Can You GHo" Workshop.
60 +10 -10 1998.021 S Branch 1998, ARA\&A 36, 17. Astroph9801065
47 +23 -15 1998.051 Z Hughes & Birkinshaw 1998, ApJ501,1. Astroph9801183 Cl0016+16
65 +20 -14 1998.074 B Watanabe, Ichikawa & Okamura, 1998, ApJ 503, 553. Astroph9801256
66 +15 -14 1998.081 L Goicoechea, Mediavilla, Oscoz, Serra and Buitrago Astroph9801315
82 +16 -16 1998.092 R Tully, R. B. 1999, IAU Symp 183 {\it Cosmological Parameters and the Evolution of the Universe}, K. Sato ed. p 54. TF (Astroph9802027)
30 +18 -7 1998.1 CM Lineweaver, C. \& Barbosa, D. 1998, A\&A 329, 799. % CBP Acoustic Fit
47 +6 -6 1998.113 CM Webster, A., Bridle, S., Hobson, M., Lasenby, A., Lahav, O. \& Rocha, G. 1998, ApJL 509, L65. Astroph9802109 CMB Accoustic peak, Omega = 1 assumed
42 +12 -9 1998.14 Z Grainge, K. 1998, in Observational Cosmology with New Radio Surveys, Bremer \etal eds (Dordrecht: Kluwer) p 83. SZ to A2218 and A1413
62 +7 -7 1998.16 L Wambsganss, J. 1998, in Observational Cosmology with New Radio Surveys, Bremer \etal eds (Dordrecht: Kluwer) p 317. SZ to A2218 and A1413
72 +12 -12 1998.2 TK Madore \etal 1998, ApJ in press Implications paper.
58 +11 -11 1998.158 CM Lineweaver, C. \& Barbosa, D. 1988 ApJ 496, 624. % Astroph9706077
57 +7 -7 1998.169 BS Federspiel, Tammann & Sandage ApJ 495, 115 Virgo Distance from 21-cm Linewidths
60 +11 -11 1998.194 O Salaris \& Cassisi MNRAS 298, 166. Astroph9803103 Red Giant Tip Calibration
56 +3 -3 1998.200 B Theureau, G. 1998, A\&A 331, 1. B Band TF HST Cal
51 +4 -4 1998.200 B Theureau, G. 1998, A\&A 331, 1. B Band TF Hipparcos Cal
57 +8 -8 1998.212 O Narasimha & Mazumdar Astroph9803195 Ceph to M100 + Virgo z
58 +19 -18 1998.214 L Impey \etal Astroph9803207 Lens PG1115+080
70 +10 -10 1998.220 Z Cen, R. ApJL 498, L99. Astroph9803250 SZ summary
57 +7 -7 1998.223 AS Tammann, G. 1999, IAU Symp 183 {\it Cosmological Parameters and the Evolution of the Universe}, K. Sato ed. p 31. Astroph9803255
74 +8 -7 1998.231 L Chartas \etal Astroph9803285 0957 x-ray mass q=0 assumed
60 +6 -6 1998.25 S Tripp R. 1998, A\&A 331, 815
57 +7 -7 1998.344 AS Tammann, G. in 8th Marcel Grossmann Symp Astroph9805013
62 +6 -6 1998.345 G Della Valle, Kissler-Pattig, Danziger, J. \& Storm, J. 1998, MNRAS 299, 267 % Astroph9805024 GCLF calib of SN Ia
61 +13 -15 1998.90 L Romanowsky \& Kochanek 1998, Astroph9805080. Revised number 0957+561
68 +5 -5 1998.37 A Nevalainen & Roos, M. 1998, Preprint. A&A in press. Astroph9805136
79 +7 -7 1998.382 A Luri, X. Gomez, A., Torra, J., Figueras, F. \& Mennessier, M. 1998, A\&A 335, 81L. Astroph9805215
61 +5 -5 1998.406 O Baum, W. 1998, AJ 116, 31. Preprint. Based on Coma distance and ages.
77 +8 -8 1998.444 O Harris, W. Durrell, P., Pierce, M. \& Secker, J. 1998, Nature 395, 45. Astroph 9806153 (RG in Virgo)
55 +10 -10 1998.5 L Fassnacht, C. \etal in IAU Colloquium 164, (PASP 144) J. Zensus \etal eds, p311. CLASS1608+656. large errors
65 +3 -3 1998.55 S Suntzeff, N. \& Phillips, M. 1998, NOAO Newsletter \#54, 2.
87 +11 -11 1998.600 F Jensen, J., Tonry, J. \& Luppino, G. 1999, ApJ 510, 71. Astroph 9807326. SBF to Hydra and Coma
55 +8 -8 1998.621 S Schaefer, B. 1998, ApJ 509, 80. Astroph9808157 SN1974G in N4414
49 +29 -29 1998.632 Z Cooray, A. 1998, A\&A 339, 623. Astroph9808186. SZ+Lensing combined constaints.
79 +12 -12 1998.667 D Pierce, M. \& Tripoli, R. in NOAO Newsletter \#55, Sept 98. Dn-sigma to Coma.
47 +14 -14 1998.67 Z Furuzawa, A. \etal 1998, ApJ 504, 35. SZ on CL0016+16
70 +18 -18 1998.678 AT Madore, B. \etal 1998, Nature 395, 47. (Fornax as a cluster)
71 +13 -13 1998.681 L Tonry, J. \& Franx, M. ApJ in press. Astroph 9809064 0957+561 dispersion
82 +8 -8 1998.714 G Grillmair, C., Forbes, D. Brodie, J. \& Elson, R. 1998, AJ in press (Astroph9809210) Fornax Globs
77 +4 -4 1998.756 R Tully R. 1998, in Post-Hipparcos Cosmic Candles, Caputo \& Heck, eds. Astroph9809394.
60 +10 -10 1998.775 O Paturel, G. \etal 1998, A\&A 339, 6771. Hipparcos + sosies Astroph9810155
53 +38 -28 1998.85 Z Andreani \etal 1999, ApJ 513, 23. Astroph9811093, SZ to RXJ0658-5557. Assumed q_0=1/2
64 +4 -4 1998.869 S Suntzeff, N. \etal 1999, AJ 117, 1175. Astroph9811205, SN1998bu
42 +9 -9 1998.883 O Collier, S., Horne, K., Wanders, I. \& Peterson, B. 1999, MNRAS 302, L24. Astroph9811278 AGN reverberation mapping
69 +8 -8 1999.070 R Shanks, 1999 in Harmonizing Cosmic Distance Scales in a Post-Hipparcos Era, eds D. Egret and A. Heck, ASP Conference Series TF Astroph9901335
64 +4 -4 1999.000 S Jha, S. \etal 1998, BAAS SN1998bu
73 +8 -8 1999.02 AK Freedman, W., Mould, J., Kennicutt, R., \& Madore, B. 1999, IAU Symp 183 {\it Cosmological Parameters and the Evolution of the Universe}, K. Sato ed. p 17.
58 +11 -11 1999.04 OC Lineweaver, C. 1999, IAU Symp 183 {\it Cosmological Parameters and the Evolution of the Universe}, K. Sato ed. p 98.
61 +6 -6 1999.095 S Meikle \& Hernandez, 1999, JIIAS. astro-ph/9902056 SN1998bu
44 +7 -7 1999.155 Z Komatsu, E. \etal 1999, ApJL, in press. Astroph9902351, SZ on RXJ1347-1145
59 +5 -5 1999.210 S Tammann, G. \& Reindl 1999, in Assergi Supernova Workshop, Astroph9903220
77 +29 -24 1999.218 L Bernstein, G. \& Fischer, P. 1999, AJ 118, 14. Astroph9903274, 0957 model+cluster
69 +13 -19 1999.253 L Biggs, A., Browne, I., Helbig, P., Koopmans, L. Wilkinson, P. \& Perley, R. 1999, MNRAS 304, 349. B0218+357 time delay
65 +5 -5 1999.258 A Turner, M. in {\it The Proceedings of Particle Physics and the Universe (Cosmo-98)}, D. O. Caldwell, ed. (AIP, Woodbury, NY) Astroph9904051.
57 +23 -16 1999.288 ZC Grainge, K., Jones M.,Pooley, G., Saunders, R., Edge, A. \& Kneissl, R. 2002, MNRAS 333, 318. Astroph 9904165 SZ with Ryle telescope A1413, Assumed SCDM
46 +14 -11 1999.290 Z Saunders, R. \etal 1999, MNRAS in press. Astroph9904168 SZ on A773
63 +7 -7 1999.300 L Myers, S. 1999, PNAS 96, 4236. Summary, 4 lens #'s averaged by JPH.
62 +5 -5 1999.317 S Tripp, R. \& Branch, D. 1999, ApJ in press. Astroph9904347
56 +6 -6 1999.322 OS Tammann, G., Sandage, A. \& Reindl, B. 1999, in 19th Texas Symp., Astroph 9904360. Distance of Virgo
52 +5 -4 1999.325 B Ekholm, T., Teerikorpi, P/, Theureau, G., Hanski, M., Paturel, G., Bottinelli, L. \& Gouguenheim, L. 1999, A\&A in press. Astroph9904372 B Band TF
60 +2 -2 1999.328 SS Saha, A., Sandage, A., Tammann, G., Labhardt, L., Macchetto, F. \& Panagia. N. 1999, ApJ in press. Ast9904389 SN1989B
65 +2 -2 1999.350 S Filippenko, A. \& Riess, A. 1999, in "Type Ia Supernovae: Theory & Cosmology" J. Niemeyer \& J. Truran, eds. astro-ph/9905049
72 +6 -6 1999.352 O Richtler, T. \etal 1999, in Science in the VLT Era and Beyond., Astroph9905080. Fornax distance
70 +5 -6 1999.382 AK Freedman, W. 1999, in "Particle Physics and the Universe, (Singapore: World Scientific) Ast9905222
79 +7 -7 1999.403 S Jensen \etal SBF Far field e-mail
68 +10 -10 1999.409 A Lineweaver, C. 1999, Science 284, 1503.
73 +11 -13 1999.41 Z Mason and Myers, S. 19.04D AAS Meeting
78 +11 -11 1999.419 DK Kelson, D. \etal KP AAS FP
71 +8 -8 1999.42 BK Sakaim S. \etal KP AAS TF
69 +7 -7 1999.43 OK Ferrarese, L. \etal KP AAS PopII (SBF)
68 +5 -5 1999.44 SK Gibson, B. \etal KP AAS SNIa
68 +6 -6 1999.445 AK Mould \etal KP AAS Combination + Fe corr
71 +6 -6 1999.445 AK Mould \etal KP AAS Comb no Fe corr
79 +7 -7 1999.446 S Tonry \etal AAS
60 +12 -12 1999.447 Z Reese \etal 46.03 AAS Meeting SCDM
63 +12 -12 1999.447 Z Reese \etal 46.03 Open U
67 +12 -12 1999.447 Z Reese \etal 46.03 Lambda U
69 +18 -12 1999.448 L Chae, K.-H. 1999, ApJ in press. astroph9906179 0957 lens
64 +8 -6 1999.458 S Jha, S. \etal ApJS in press. SN1998bu Astroph9906220
65 +8 -8 1999.464 A Rowan-Robinson, M. 1999, astroph 9906277. Summary
63 +4 -4 1999.516 S Phillips, M. \etal 1999, AJ in press. Ast9907052
77 +7 -7 1999.520 F Tonry, J. \etal 1999, Astroph9907062, ApJ in press.
74 +7 -7 1999.538 F Blakeslee, J \etal 1999 in Cosmic Flows workshop.
59 +8 -7 1999.556 LC Fassnacht \etal, 1999, ApJ 527, 498. Astroph9907257. B1608+656
68 +13 -13 1999.557 LC Koopmans, L. \& Fassnacht, C. 1999, ApJ 527, 513. for M=0.3 L=0.7
74 +18 -17 1999.56 L Chae at Gravitational lensing conf. 0957
55 +15 -14 1999.56 L Chae at Gravitational lensing conf. 0957
71 +7 -5 1999.561 L Lovell, J. \etal at Gravitational Lensing Conf PKS1830-211
69 +13 -10 1999.562 L Wilkott, T \& Cas.... at Gravitational Lensing Conf PKS1830-211
65 +1 -1 1999.575 S Wang, Y. 2000, ApJ 536, 531. Astroph 9907405,
68 +5 -5 1999.618 SK Gibson, B. \etal 2000, ApJ 529,723. Astroph 9908149, KP SN Result
66 +6 -6 1999.669 O Hendry, M. \& Rauzy, S. 1999,in Cosmic Flows, Courteau \etal eds.
69 +6 -6 1999.672 FK Ferrarese, L. \etal. 2000, ApJ 529,745. Astroph9908192. Pop II indicators
71 +7 -7 1999.675 AK Freedman, W. 1999, Astroph 9909076, in Schramm Memorial Volumes.
72 +4 -4 1999.689 S Richtler, T. \& Drenkhahn, G. 1999, in Cosmology and Astrophysics, Kundt W., van de Bruck C. (Eds.) Astoph9909117. SN and Fornax
71 +6 -6 1999.692 AK Ferrarese, L. \etal 1999, in Cosmic Flows, Courteau \etal eds. Astroph 9909134.
78 +10 -10 1999.706 DK Kelson, D. \etal 2000, ApJ 529,768. astroph9909222. KP FP + Dn-sig
60 +20 -15 1999.708 L Williams, L. \& Saha, P. 2000,in {\it Gravitational Lensing: Recent Progress and Future Goals}, T. Brainerd, J. Hewitt \& C. Kochanek eds. % Astroph9909248. Pixellated lenses
71 +8 -8 1999.711 TK Sakai, S. \etal 2000, ApJ 529,698. Astroph9909269 KP TF
71 +6 -6 1999.715 AK Mould, J. \etal 2000, ApJ 529,786. Astroph9909260 KP summary with out FE
68 +6 -6 1999.717 AK Mould, J. \etal 2000, ApJ 529,786. Astroph9909260 KP summary with FE
69 +13 -19 1999.733 L Biggs, A. \etal 1999, in Gravitational Lensing: Recent Progress and Future Goals', T. G. Brainerd and C. S. Kochanek (eds.). astro-ph/9909377, B0218+357.
74 +4 -4 1999.803 S Blakeslee, J. \etal 1999, ApJL 527, L73. Ast9910340.
57 +3 -3 1999.808 O Ekholm, T. \etal 1999, A\&A in press. Ast9910387. SN + Cepheids nearby
77 +8 -8 1999.846 R Tully, R. B. \& Pierce, M. 2000, ApJ 533, 744. Ast9911052.
81 +10 -10 1999.847 H Rothberg, B., \etal 1999, ApJ in press. Ast9911053.
69 +9 -9 1999.866 G Kavelaars, J., Harris, W., Hanes, D., Hesser, J. and Pritchet, C. 2000, ApJ 533, 125. Coma E's Ast9911206.
61 +11 -11 1999.870 L Williams, L. \& Saha, P. 2000, AJ 119, 439. % Ast9911231. Pixellated lenses
58 +5 -5 1999.880 SS Tammann, G., Parodi, B \& Reindl, B. 2000, in IAU Coll. 176, Ast9911284.
63 +21 -21 1999.92 Z Reese, E. \etal 2000, ApJ 533, 38. Ast9912071. SZ to MS0451-03 and CL0016+16. Assume Lambda cosmology
55 +3 -3 1999.97 O Sandage, A. 1999, ApJ 527, 479.
70 +12 -12 1999.98 O Novosyadlyj, B. \etal A\&A submitted. Ast9912511. LSS Theory
50 +22 -17 2000.010 Z Patel, S., Joy, M., Carlstrom, J., Holder, G., Reese, E., Gomez, P., Hughes, J., Grego, L. \& Holzapfel, W. 1999, BAAS 195, 64.03. % AAS Mtg Abell 1995
70 +15 -32 2000.167 O Novosyadlyj, B., Durrer, R., Gottl\"ober, S., Lukash, V. \& Apunevych, S 2000, Gravitation \& Cosmology, Supplement 5, in press. Ast0002522. LSS Theory
59 +6 -6 2000.267 SS B. R. Parodi, A. Saha, A. Sandage, G. A. Tammann, 2000, ApJ in press astro-ph/0004063
71 +7 -7 2000.286 A Fukugita, M. 2000, Ast0005069. Summary
85 +5 -5 2000.350 O Willick, J. \& Batra, P. 2001, ApJ, 548, 564. Ast0005112. IRAS Flow model
92 +5 -5 2000.354 O Willick, J. \& Batra, P. 2001, ApJ, 548, 564. Ast0005112. Phenom Flow model
40 +13 -13 2000.40 O Qin, Y.-P. Modern Physics Letters A, 14, 1073. Ast0005578.
67 +2 -2 2000.436 A Gott, J. R. III, Vogeley, M., Podariu, S. \& Ratra, B. 2001, ApJ 549, 1. Ast0006103.
70 +4 -4 2000.508 S Hernandez, M. \etal 2000, MNRAS in press. ast0007022. SN1998bu
71 +7 -7 2000.524 AK Freedman, W. Physics Reports, 2000, Vol. 333-334, 13.
52 +14 -8 2000.530 L Burud, I. \etal 2000, ApJ 544, 117. astro-ph/0007136. B1600+434
65 +8 -8 2000.535 A Primack, J. 2000, Ast0007187. at 4th International Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter in the Universe (DM 2000), Marina del Rey, California, D. Cline,ed. p 3.
59 +38 -28 2000.586 ZC Mauskopf, P. et al. 2000, ApJ 538, 505. SZ to A1835 Omega_m=1, Omega_L=0 assumed
65 +2 -2 2000.591 S Filippenko, A. \& Riess, A. 2000, in Second Tropical Workshop on Particle Physics and Cosmology: Neutrino and Flavor Physics, ed. J. F. Nieves (New York: American Institute of Physics) Astroph0008057. statistical errors only
68 +10 -10 2000.63 O Tegmark, M., Zaldariagga, M. \& Hamilton, A. 2000, Astroph0008167. Concordance fit CMB+LSS
62 +18 -18 2000.678 LC Schechter, P. 2000, in ASP conf series. {\it New Cosmology and the Values of the Fundamental Parameters}, IAU Symp 201,ed. A. Lazenby \& A. Wilkinson, Ast0009048 (O_M=03, O_L=0.7)
71 +22 -19 2000.681 OC Durrer, R. \& Novosyadlyj, B. 2001, MNRAS 324, 560. Ast0009057, LSS++
62 +8 -2 2000.794 CC Padmanabhan, T. \& Sethi, S. 2000, ApJL submitted. Astroph0010309. CMB
58 +6 -6 2000.814 SS Tammann, G., Sandage, A. \& Saha, A. 2003, in {\it A Decade of HST Science}, eds. M. Livio, K. Noll, & M. Stiavelli, (Cambridge: CUP), p222. Ast0010422. SN Summary
71 +6 -6 2000.852 LC Giovi, F.\& Amendola, L. 2001, MNRAS 325, 1097. Ast0011109. Empty Beam
64 +4 -4 2000.853 LC Giovi, F.\& Amendola, L. 2001, MNRAS 325, 1097. Ast0011109. Filled Beam
69 +13 -19 2000.87 L Biggs, A., Browne, I., Muxlow, T. \& Wilkinson, P. 2001, MNRAS in press. Ast0011142. B0218+357
76 +1 -1 2000.88 F Jensen, J., Tonry, J., Thompson, R., Ajhar, E., Lauer, T., Rieke, M., Postman, M., Liu, M., 2001, ApJ 550, 503. AST0011288. Distant SBF
73 +2 -2 2000.89 F Jensen, J., Tonry, J., Thompson, R., Ajhar, E., Lauer, T., Rieke, M., Postman, M., Liu, M., 2001, ApJ 550, 503. AST0011288. More Distant SBF
70 +9 -9 2000.892 AC Bond, J. R. et al. 2001, ASP Conf., Ast 0011378.
73 +7 -7 2000.906 SK Gibson, B, \& Stetson, P. 2001, ApJL 547, L103. Ast0011478. NGC4527 SN1991T.
73 +7 -7 2000.91 SK Gibson, B. \& Brook, C. 2001, in "New Cosmological Data and the Values of the Fundamental Parameters," ASP Conf. ed Lazenby, A. \& Wilkinson, A. Ast0011567.
63 +6 -6 2000.926 A Rowan Robinson, M. 2001, ast0012026. in 'IDM2000: 3rd International Workshop on Identification of Dark Matter', ed N.Spooner (World Scientific)
70 +5 -5 2000.928 A Sharpe, J. et al, MNRAS in press. ast 0012027, flow field
72 +8 -8 2000.95 AK Freedman, W., Madore, B., Gibson, B., Ferrarese, L., Kelson, D., Sakai, S., Mould, J., Kennicutt, R., Ford, H. Graham, J., Huchra, J., Hughes, S., Illingworth, G., Macri, L. \& Stetson, P. ApJ in press. ast0012376
71 +12 -9 2000.968 A Fukugita, M. 2001, hep-ph0012214.
79 +4 -4 2000.984 C Lahav, O. 2001, in AU Symposium 201, New Cosmological Data and the Values of the Fundamental Parameters'. ast0012475
66 +14 -11 2001.029 ZC Mason, B., Myers, S. \& Readhead, A. 2001, ApJL 555, L11. Ast0101169. (Lambda CDM)
64 +14 -11 2001.029 ZC Mason, B., Myers, S. \& Readhead, A. 2001, ApJL 555, L11. Ast0101169. (Standard CDM)
66 +14 -11 2001.030 ZC Mason, B., Myers, S. \& Readhead, A. 2001, in press in Proc. 9th Marcel Grossman Mtg. (World scientific). Ast0101170. (Lambda CDM)
64 +14 -11 2001.030 ZC Mason, B., Myers, S. \& Readhead, A. 2001, in press in Proc. 9th Marcel Grossman Mtg. (World scientific). Ast0101170. (Standard CDM)
70 +7 -7 2001.098 A Turner, M. 2001, PASP in press. Ast0102057.
73 +4 -4 2001.128 H Watanabe, M., Yasuda, N. \& Itoh, N. 2001, ApJ in press.Ast0102260.
68 +6 -6 2001.143 A Krauss, L. 2001, in Third International Conference on the Identification of Dark Matter, York, England (World Scientific) Ast0102305.
63 +7 -7 2001.164 I Allen, P. \& Shanks, T. 2004, MNRAS 347, 1101. ast0102447. (original value in 2001 was 58+/-7)
59 +8 -7 2001.179 ZC Jones, M. et al 2001, MNRAS in press. Ast0103046. SZ+SCDM
65 +8 -7 2001.181 ZC Jones, M. et al 2001, MNRAS in press. Ast0103046. SZ+LCDM
61 +15 -15 2001.379 CT Netterfield, C. \etal 2001, ApJ sub. Ast0104460. BOOMERANG CMB constraints.
69 +4 -4 2001.42 F Tonry, J. 2001, ast0105413, in {\it Astrophysical Ages and Timescales}, ASP Conf. Series, von Hippel, T., Manset, N. \& Simpson, C. eds.
69 +6 -5 2001.447 L Patnaik, A. \& Narasimha, D. 2001, MNRAS in press. Ast0106104. B1422+231
65 +6 -6 2002.5 T Hendry, M., Rauzy, S., Goodwin, S. \& Gribbin, J. 2001, MNRAS 324, 717. KLUN diam+line widths.
65 +6 -6 2001.532 O Hendry, M., Rauzy, S., Goodwin, S. \& Gribbin, J. 2001, MNRAS 324, 717. Sosies -- diameters+rotation curves
59 +6 -6 2001.551 SS Saha, A., Sandage, A., Tammann, G., Dolphin, A., Christensen, J., Panagia, N. \& Macchetto, F. D. ApJ in press. Ast0107391
71 +8 -8 2001.6 F Liu, M. \& Graham, J. 2001, ApJL in press. Ast0107471 . N4874
60 +10 -10 2001.64 H Tutui, Y., Sofue, Y., Honma, M., Ichikawai, T., Wakamatsu, K., 2001, PASJ in press. Ast0108462. CO-IR TF
67 +8 -8 2001.796 A Feast, M. 2001, in ``Variable Stars 2001" to appear in Odessa Astronomical Publications 14, Astroph0110360.
48 +4
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Am 23.09.2021 um 00:24 schrieb The Starmaker:
> UNKNOWN.
>
>

I personally think, that time in the universe does not flow along a
single line like in a calender.

I would say, that time is a local phenomenon. This local time creates a
certain local timeline, which stems from the status quo at the point
'here and now'.

This time has a past and a future, which looks like a single linear
motion of time.

But this is ONLY the local impression of something more complicated.

Since 'local' can be everywhere in the universe in space and time, the
infinite number of local timelines could have angles towards others,
intertsect or even flow into opposite directions.

This makes 'age of the universe' undefined, because 'age' is a local
measure. But the local measure 'time' cannot be extrapolated from the
local case to the universe.

Maybe the universe has no age at all (in our sense of the word) or is
eternal. Possibly we need a different concept for time to define 'age of
the universe'.

TH

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 5:10:57 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:

<snip>

> I personally think, that time in the universe does not flow along a
> single line like in a calender.
>
> I would say, that time is a local phenomenon. This local time creates a
> certain local timeline, which stems from the status quo at the point
> 'here and now'.
>
> This time has a past and a future, which looks like a single linear
> motion of time.
>
> But this is ONLY the local impression of something more complicated.
>
> Since 'local' can be everywhere in the universe in space and time, the
> infinite number of local timelines could have angles towards others,
> intertsect or even flow into opposite directions.
>
> This makes 'age of the universe' undefined, because 'age' is a local
> measure. But the local measure 'time' cannot be extrapolated from the
> local case to the universe.
>
> Maybe the universe has no age at all (in our sense of the word) or is
> eternal. Possibly we need a different concept for time to define 'age of
> the universe'.

<snip>

You know what's funny?

About a month ago, I replied to someone who was against my perception that a human physicists
proposal about that physical laws at the Solar System had the same validity in the entire Universe.

I wrote that our Solar System (in volume) was about 1 part in a spherical OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE
that contains more than 10^60 Solar Systems (just by calculating the volume of an sphere of 13.5 bly radius).

The funny part is that we, microbes in such space, pretend to assert the validity of physical laws
WITHOUT THINKING that, if we move 7 bly in any direction, the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE would probably
still there. verifying a "Hubble radius" of 13.5 bly. But now, the "Hubble Sphere" would have moved its
center by HALF THE HUBBLE RADIUS.

By thinking so, the FINITE Universe concept and the Big Bang Theory goes to the garbage can.

The Universe is INFINITE. with or without a BIG BANG.

And this thought makes me laugh at the arrogance of certain scientists, as well as relativists, which are not the same.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:19:43 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > UNKNOWN.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > First, lets look at the Timeline...
> > > >
> > > > you got Hubble himself
> > > > comes up with a
> > > > 'off the cuff' number..500.
> > > >
> > > > H=500
> > > >
> > > > Which gives the age of the universe...
> > > > 2 billion years.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > if the
> > > > facts don't fit
> > > > the theory...
> > > > change the facts?
> > > >
> > > > dats science for you.
> > > >
> > > > Makes Earth order than the universe.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, What is the age of the universe?
> > > >
> > > > (just change the numbers until you get pass earth's age)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > dats science for you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Age of the Universe? UNKNOWN
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looks like to me like another Drake's Equation fraud...
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > > > > the unchallengeable.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > > > the unchallengeable.
> > >
> > > THE HUBBLE CONSTANT
> > > https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/
> > >
> > > Ho: 500 -----------------> Age (million of years): 1,852 (Hubble, by 1929)
> > > Age of Earth (million of years): 3,000 (mid '30s, by radioactive dating of rocks)
> > >
> > > Ho: 180 -----------------> Age (million of years): 5,143 (Humason, Mayall and Sandage,1956)
> > > Ho: 75 -----------------> Age (million of years): 12,344 (Sandage,1958)
> > > Age of Earth (million of years): 3,000 (mid '30s, by radioactive dating of rocks)
> > >
> > > Ho: 55 -----------------> Age (million of years): 16,833 (Sandage, Tammann , early '70s)
> > >
> > >
> > > Ho: 67.66 -------------> Age (million of years): 13,683 (Planck mission published in 2018)
> > > Ho: 74.03 --------------> Age (million of years): 12,506 (Hubble Space Telescope, 2019)
> > >
> > > https://www.livescience.com/32321-how-is-earths-age-calculated.html
> > >
> > > "It was not until the 1950s that the age of the universe was finally revised and put safely beyond the age of
> > > the Earth, which had at last reached its true age of 4.56 billion years," Lewis said. "Physicists suddenly gained
> > > a new respect for geologists."
> >
> > Well it looks like they are playing ping-pong with the numbers...
> >
> > https://www.space.com/universe-age-14-billion-years-old
> >
> > What would be the Ho for 14 billion? 65??

14 billion???? Does that means exactly 14 billion, or more than 14
billion? Are we talking about close to 15 billion??

Age of the Universe...UNKNOWN

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Okay, now let's go back to the Timeline at the very beginning...

H=500 gives the age of the universe...2 billion years old.

If that number is correct, then that means the age of the earth is incorrect.

Using "The Code" 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' ...means

that the "heavens *and the* earth" were created at the same time.

That would make the universe 2 billion years old.

And the earth...2 billion years old.

Yous people changed the wrong numbers!

It's stupid to base the age of the universe on the earth's incorrect age.

But, dats wat you guys call....The Sciences.

give me a break.

How did yous get into college...through the row boat team side door????

Look at a old picture of your physics teacher...he is on the row boat team.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:19:43 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > UNKNOWN.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > First, lets look at the Timeline...
> > > > >
> > > > > you got Hubble himself
> > > > > comes up with a
> > > > > 'off the cuff' number..500.
> > > > >
> > > > > H=500
> > > > >
> > > > > Which gives the age of the universe...
> > > > > 2 billion years.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > if the
> > > > > facts don't fit
> > > > > the theory...
> > > > > change the facts?
> > > > >
> > > > > dats science for you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Makes Earth order than the universe.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So, What is the age of the universe?
> > > > >
> > > > > (just change the numbers until you get pass earth's age)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > dats science for you.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Age of the Universe? UNKNOWN
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks like to me like another Drake's Equation fraud...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > > > > > the unchallengeable.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > > > > the unchallengeable.
> > > >
> > > > THE HUBBLE CONSTANT
> > > > https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/
> > > >
> > > > Ho: 500 -----------------> Age (million of years): 1,852 (Hubble, by 1929)
> > > > Age of Earth (million of years): 3,000 (mid '30s, by radioactive dating of rocks)
> > > >
> > > > Ho: 180 -----------------> Age (million of years): 5,143 (Humason, Mayall and Sandage,1956)
> > > > Ho: 75 -----------------> Age (million of years): 12,344 (Sandage,1958)
> > > > Age of Earth (million of years): 3,000 (mid '30s, by radioactive dating of rocks)
> > > >
> > > > Ho: 55 -----------------> Age (million of years): 16,833 (Sandage, Tammann , early '70s)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ho: 67.66 -------------> Age (million of years): 13,683 (Planck mission published in 2018)
> > > > Ho: 74.03 --------------> Age (million of years): 12,506 (Hubble Space Telescope, 2019)
> > > >
> > > > https://www.livescience.com/32321-how-is-earths-age-calculated.html
> > > >
> > > > "It was not until the 1950s that the age of the universe was finally revised and put safely beyond the age of
> > > > the Earth, which had at last reached its true age of 4.56 billion years," Lewis said. "Physicists suddenly gained
> > > > a new respect for geologists."
> > >
> > > Well it looks like they are playing ping-pong with the numbers...
> > >
> > > https://www.space.com/universe-age-14-billion-years-old
> > >
> > > What would be the Ho for 14 billion? 65??
>
> 14 billion???? Does that means exactly 14 billion, or more than 14
> billion? Are we talking about close to 15 billion??
>
> Age of the Universe...UNKNOWN
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Am 24.09.2021 um 17:24 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 5:10:57 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I personally think, that time in the universe does not flow along a
>> single line like in a calender.
>>
>> I would say, that time is a local phenomenon. This local time creates a
>> certain local timeline, which stems from the status quo at the point
>> 'here and now'.
>>
>> This time has a past and a future, which looks like a single linear
>> motion of time.
>>
>> But this is ONLY the local impression of something more complicated.
>>
>> Since 'local' can be everywhere in the universe in space and time, the
>> infinite number of local timelines could have angles towards others,
>> intertsect or even flow into opposite directions.
>>
>> This makes 'age of the universe' undefined, because 'age' is a local
>> measure. But the local measure 'time' cannot be extrapolated from the
>> local case to the universe.
>>
>> Maybe the universe has no age at all (in our sense of the word) or is
>> eternal. Possibly we need a different concept for time to define 'age of
>> the universe'.
>
> <snip>
>
> You know what's funny?
>
> About a month ago, I replied to someone who was against my perception that a human physicists
> proposal about that physical laws at the Solar System had the same validity in the entire Universe.
>
> I wrote that our Solar System (in volume) was about 1 part in a spherical OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE
> that contains more than 10^60 Solar Systems (just by calculating the volume of an sphere of 13.5 bly radius).
>
> The funny part is that we, microbes in such space, pretend to assert the validity of physical laws
> WITHOUT THINKING that, if we move 7 bly in any direction, the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE would probably
> still there. verifying a "Hubble radius" of 13.5 bly. But now, the "Hubble Sphere" would have moved its
> center by HALF THE HUBBLE RADIUS.
>
> By thinking so, the FINITE Universe concept and the Big Bang Theory goes to the garbage can.
>
> The Universe is INFINITE. with or without a BIG BANG.
>
> And this thought makes me laugh at the arrogance of certain scientists, as well as relativists, which are not the same.
>

I'm against big-bang theory, too.

I have a different explanation for the phenomenon called 'black hole'.

The main idea is to take spacetime as real and existent and as prior to
our observed world.

So, we see a certain part of spacetime from a certain perspective and
call the images we see 'universe'.

But that image is not universal, but an image, which WE see, because we
are where we are.

Now this 'background' called 'spacetime' could support different
timelines, which can have an angle to ours.

This would allow a vision on a region of space, where the axis of time
of that region points away from us.

Then we would see 'time from the back side'. and that local time takes
everthing with it (as time usually does).

But we could also imagine the opposite, what is called a 'white hole'.

That would be an impression, were we see the arrow of time of that
region pointing towards us.

Because that arrow points towards us, it lies actually in our own past.

Now that past is what generates an image, which we call 'universe'. But
that is not universal, because it is actually our own past light cone.

Because that image we call 'universe' actually stems from a white hole,
we call that white hole 'big bang', from where our 'universe' emerged.

But a white hole is just the other side of a black hole,

TH

Richard Hertz wrote:
....
> The funny part is that we, microbes in such space, pretend to assert the validity of physical laws
> WITHOUT THINKING that, if we move 7 bly in any direction, the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE would probably
> still there. verifying a "Hubble radius" of 13.5 bly. But now, the "Hubble Sphere" would have moved its
> center by HALF THE HUBBLE RADIUS.

Richard, the Big Bang model is NOT about an explosion in an empty 3D
space. You are, again, making a fool of yourself.

You have to read and digest the post more carefully, instead of jumping to the throat without thinking.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 10:42:58 AM UTC-3, Python wrote:

> Richard Hertz wrote:
> ...
> > The funny part is that we, microbes in such space, pretend to assert the validity of physical laws
> > WITHOUT THINKING that, if we move 7 bly in any direction, the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE would probably
> > still there. verifying a "Hubble radius" of 13.5 bly. But now, the "Hubble Sphere" would have moved its
> > center by HALF THE HUBBLE RADIUS.

> Richard, the Big Bang model is NOT about an explosion in an empty 3D
> space. You are, again, making a fool of yourself.

Think of an sphere with radius Ro = c/Ho, centered on Earth. Beyond that radius, matter recedes at speed higher than c.
This is the original, non relativistic Hubble radius of 13.5 bly.

Now, in an exercise of imagination, move the center of the sphere 7 bly at any arbitrary direction. Hubble radius
still is 13.5 bly, because we are not the center of the Universe.

This means, in this gedanke exp., that you have another 7 bly to account for, plus the previous 13.5 bly, and the estimation
of the age of the universe, with 1bly = 1by traveling at c, now gives 20.5 bly. Keep doing that, at the age of the Universe
result being infinite.

If you reject this gedanke exp., then you are validating that we are the center of the universe. Isnt't it?

Do you understand, Python, what I wrote in the previous post?

How would we know the age of the universe if it is an island?
How would we know it is an island?

Mitchell Raemsch

In other words, the age of the universe is the exact age of the earth.

The stars you see like the big dipper are the exact age of the universe.

And since the big dipper can see you...

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Okay, now let's go back to the Timeline at the very beginning...
>
> H=500 gives the age of the universe...2 billion years old.
>
> If that number is correct, then that means the age of the earth is incorrect.
>
> Using "The Code" 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' ...means
>
> that the "heavens *and the* earth" were created at the same time.
>
> That would make the universe 2 billion years old.
>
> And the earth...2 billion years old.
>
> Yous people changed the wrong numbers!
>
> It's stupid to base the age of the universe on the earth's incorrect age.
>
> But, dats wat you guys call....The Sciences.
>
> give me a break.
>
> How did yous get into college...through the row boat team side door????
>
> Look at a old picture of your physics teacher...he is on the row boat team.
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 8:19:43 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > UNKNOWN.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, lets look at the Timeline...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you got Hubble himself
> > > > > > comes up with a
> > > > > > 'off the cuff' number..500.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H=500
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which gives the age of the universe...
> > > > > > 2 billion years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if the
> > > > > > facts don't fit
> > > > > > the theory...
> > > > > > change the facts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > dats science for you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Makes Earth order than the universe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, What is the age of the universe?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (just change the numbers until you get pass earth's age)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > dats science for you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Age of the Universe? UNKNOWN
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looks like to me like another Drake's Equation fraud...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > > > > > > the unchallengeable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > > > > > the unchallengeable.
> > > > >
> > > > > THE HUBBLE CONSTANT
> > > > > https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/
> > > > >
> > > > > Ho: 500 -----------------> Age (million of years): 1,852 (Hubble, by 1929)
> > > > > Age of Earth (million of years): 3,000 (mid '30s, by radioactive dating of rocks)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ho: 180 -----------------> Age (million of years): 5,143 (Humason, Mayall and Sandage,1956)
> > > > > Ho: 75 -----------------> Age (million of years): 12,344 (Sandage,1958)
> > > > > Age of Earth (million of years): 3,000 (mid '30s, by radioactive dating of rocks)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ho: 55 -----------------> Age (million of years): 16,833 (Sandage, Tammann , early '70s)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ho: 67.66 -------------> Age (million of years): 13,683 (Planck mission published in 2018)
> > > > > Ho: 74.03 --------------> Age (million of years): 12,506 (Hubble Space Telescope, 2019)
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.livescience.com/32321-how-is-earths-age-calculated.html
> > > > >
> > > > > "It was not until the 1950s that the age of the universe was finally revised and put safely beyond the age of
> > > > > the Earth, which had at last reached its true age of 4.56 billion years," Lewis said. "Physicists suddenly gained
> > > > > a new respect for geologists."
> > > >
> > > > Well it looks like they are playing ping-pong with the numbers...
> > > >
> > > > https://www.space.com/universe-age-14-billion-years-old
> > > >
> > > > What would be the Ho for 14 billion? 65??
> >
> > 14 billion???? Does that means exactly 14 billion, or more than 14
> > billion? Are we talking about close to 15 billion??
> >
> > Age of the Universe...UNKNOWN
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Richard Hertz wrote:
> You have to read and digest the post more carefully, instead of jumping to the throat without thinking.
>
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 10:42:58 AM UTC-3, Python wrote:
>
>> Richard Hertz wrote:
>> ...
>>> The funny part is that we, microbes in such space, pretend to assert the validity of physical laws
>>> WITHOUT THINKING that, if we move 7 bly in any direction, the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE would probably
>>> still there. verifying a "Hubble radius" of 13.5 bly. But now, the "Hubble Sphere" would have moved its
>>> center by HALF THE HUBBLE RADIUS.
>
>> Richard, the Big Bang model is NOT about an explosion in an empty 3D
>> space. You are, again, making a fool of yourself.
>
> Think of an sphere with radius Ro = c/Ho, centered on Earth. Beyond that radius, matter recedes at speed higher than c.
> This is the original, non relativistic Hubble radius of 13.5 bly.
>
> Now, in an exercise of imagination, move the center of the sphere 7 bly at any arbitrary direction. Hubble radius
> still is 13.5 bly, because we are not the center of the Universe.
>
> This means, in this gedanke exp., that you have another 7 bly to account for, plus the previous 13.5 bly, and the estimation
> of the age of the universe, with 1bly = 1by traveling at c, now gives 20.5 bly. Keep doing that, at the age of the Universe
> result being infinite.
>
> If you reject this gedanke exp., then you are validating that we are the center of the universe. Isnt't it?

*every* point in space, with this meaning in the context of BB model, is
the center of the Universe

> Do you understand, Python, what I wrote in the previous post?

I do. You didn't.

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:

<snip>

> > If you reject this gedanke exp., then you are validating that we are the center of the universe. Isnt't it?
> *every* point in space, with this meaning in the context of BB model, is the center of the Universe
> > Do you understand, Python, what I wrote in the previous post?
> I do. You didn't.

Python, this is being like a child's contest. I repost some part, and beg you to have in mind the original concept
of the Hubble's Law on the expansion of the universe (not related with the BBT by Le Maitre):

> >>> The funny part is that we, microbes in such space, pretend to assert the validity of physical laws
> >>> WITHOUT THINKING that, if we move 7 bly in any direction, the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE would probably
> >>> still there. verifying a "Hubble radius" of 13.5 bly. But now, the "Hubble Sphere" would have moved its
> >>> center by HALF THE HUBBLE RADIUS.

> > This means, in this gedanke exp., that you have another 7 bly to account for, plus the previous 13.5 bly, and the estimation
> > of the age of the universe, **********with 1bly = 1by********* traveling at c, now gives 20.5 bly. Keep doing that, at the age
>> of the Universe result being infinite.

> >> Richard, the Big Bang model is NOT about an explosion in an empty 3D space. You are, again, making a fool of yourself.

NOTE: I never mentioned an explosion in an empty space, not even the BBT. Just Hubble and his assertion about galaxies
receding from our position.

On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 12:11:43 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-3, Python wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > If you reject this gedanke exp., then you are validating that we are the center of the universe. Isnt't it?
> > *every* point in space, with this meaning in the context of BB model, is the center of the Universe
> > > Do you understand, Python, what I wrote in the previous post?
> > I do. You didn't.
> Python, this is being like a child's contest. I repost some part, and beg you to have in mind the original concept
> of the Hubble's Law on the expansion of the universe (not related with the BBT by Le Maitre):
> > >>> The funny part is that we, microbes in such space, pretend to assert the validity of physical laws
> > >>> WITHOUT THINKING that, if we move 7 bly in any direction, the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE would probably
> > >>> still there. verifying a "Hubble radius" of 13.5 bly. But now, the "Hubble Sphere" would have moved its
> > >>> center by HALF THE HUBBLE RADIUS.
> > > This means, in this gedanke exp., that you have another 7 bly to account for, plus the previous 13.5 bly, and the estimation
> > > of the age of the universe, **********with 1bly = 1by********* traveling at c, now gives 20.5 bly. Keep doing that, at the age
> >> of the Universe result being infinite.
> > >> Richard, the Big Bang model is NOT about an explosion in an empty 3D space. You are, again, making a fool of yourself.
> NOTE: I never mentioned an explosion in an empty space, not even the BBT. Just Hubble and his assertion about galaxies
> receding from our position.

Everywhere appears to be its own center.
This suggests there is no universal center...

Mitchell Raemsch

Am 25.09.2021 um 08:33 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 24.09.2021 um 17:24 schrieb Richard Hertz:
>> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 5:10:57 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I personally think, that time in the universe does not flow along a
>>> single line like in a calender.
>>>
>>> I would say, that time is a local phenomenon. This local time creates a
>>> certain local timeline, which stems from the status quo at the point
>>> 'here and now'.
>>>
>>> This time has a past and a future, which looks like a single linear
>>> motion of time.
>>>
>>> But this is ONLY the local impression of something more complicated.
>>>
>>> Since 'local' can be everywhere in the universe in space and time, the
>>> infinite number of local timelines could have angles towards others,
>>> intertsect or even flow into opposite directions.
>>>
>>> This makes 'age of the universe' undefined, because 'age' is a local
>>> measure. But the local measure 'time' cannot be extrapolated from the
>>> local case to the universe.
>>>
>>> Maybe the universe has no age at all (in our sense of the word) or is
>>> eternal. Possibly we need a different concept for time to define 'age of
>>> the universe'.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> You know what's funny?
>>
>> About a month ago, I replied to someone who was against my perception
>> that a human physicists
>> proposal about that physical laws at the Solar System had the same
>> validity in the entire Universe.
>>
>> I wrote that our Solar System (in volume) was about 1 part in a
>> spherical OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE
>> that contains more than 10^60 Solar Systems (just by calculating the
>> volume of an sphere of 13.5 bly radius).
>>
>> The funny part is that we, microbes in such space, pretend to assert
>> the validity of physical laws
>> WITHOUT THINKING that, if we move 7 bly in any direction, the
>> OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE would probably
>> still there. verifying a "Hubble radius" of 13.5 bly. But now, the
>> "Hubble Sphere" would have moved its
>> center by HALF THE HUBBLE RADIUS.
>>
>> By thinking so, the FINITE Universe concept and the Big Bang Theory
>> goes to the garbage can.
>>
>> The Universe is INFINITE. with or without a BIG BANG.
>>
>> And this thought makes me laugh at the arrogance of certain
>> scientists, as well as relativists, which are not the same.
>>
>
> I'm against big-bang theory, too.
>
> I have a different explanation for the phenomenon called 'black hole'.
>
> The main idea is to take spacetime as real and existent and as prior to
> our observed world.
>
> So, we see a certain part of spacetime from a certain perspective and
> call the images we see 'universe'.
>
> But that image is not universal, but an image, which WE see, because we
> are where we are.
>
> Now this 'background' called 'spacetime' could support different
> timelines, which can have an angle to ours.
>

This concept is a little unusual, but could be supported by an observation:

the so called 'Pioneer anomaly'.

The Pioneer anomaly could be explained as result of acceleration by
initial start and several fly-byes.

In the spacetime view acceleration is a curve of the worldline.

Now we need recenter the frame of reference and the local time to the
probe again (after acceleration).

Then the probe 'lives' in a different 'time-domain', where the axis of
time has an angle towards our world and our local time.

This would look, as if the probe is accelerated towards the sun by an
undetectable force.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

> This concept is a little unusual, but could be supported by an
> observation: the so called 'Pioneer anomaly'.
> The Pioneer anomaly could be explained as result of acceleration by
> initial start and several fly-byes.

I think I got it. They want you imprisoned, the unvaccinated, in order to
maintain the social order, poor-rich, after the impeding pole-shift.

There will be a few millions, not more. It makes sense why they want
people dead now.

FEMA’S BILLING CODE FOR DEATH BY GUILLOTINE IS ICD 9 E 97 IT IS THE CODE
FOR 'LEGAL EXECUTION' https://www.bitchute.com/video/xKqZhKAay3UM/

Am 29.09.2021 um 20:27 schrieb Ho Im:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> This concept is a little unusual, but could be supported by an
>> observation: the so called 'Pioneer anomaly'.
>> The Pioneer anomaly could be explained as result of acceleration by
>> initial start and several fly-byes.
>
> I think I got it. They want you imprisoned, the unvaccinated, in order to
> maintain the social order, poor-rich, after the impeding pole-shift.
>
> There will be a few millions, not more. It makes sense why they want
> people dead now.

Your reply does not quite fit to the Pioneer anomaly.

But let me try to explain the idea once more:

I had an idea, how to connect GR to QM. The concept is actually simple.
You need to take spacetime of GR as prior to our observation of the
world, which is actually a structure of/in spacetime.

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

Then the particles (and so on) are internal structure of spacetime.

These 'structures' are relative and observer dependent.

The filter is the local axis of time. This time defines, which part we
can see. This part, which belongs to our own time is called our own
'time-domaine'.

If now a space-craft gets accelerated by initial starts and fly-byes,
the world line of the craft is bent away from ours.

The local time of the craft and our own axcis of time then would have an
angle, which looks, as if the probe is decelerated by an unknown force.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> I think I got it. They want you imprisoned, the unvaccinated, in order
>> to maintain the social order, poor-rich, after the impeding pole-shift.
>> There will be a few millions, not more. It makes sense why they want
>> people dead now.
>
> Your reply does not quite fit to the Pioneer anomaly.
> But let me try to explain the idea once more:
> I had an idea, how to connect GR to QM. The concept is actually simple.
> You need to take spacetime of GR as prior to our observation of the
> world, which is actually a structure of/in spacetime.

just stop doing it. It reveals people dont undrestand yet, for long now,
those are different domains of applicability. The macro scale
understanding in quantum is close to zero. However

Australian Witch Just Resigned
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=385AG3UWDYY1