## More Vain Human Fake (Cosmology) Science

I haven’t mucked out my spam folder for a while and when I did so just now I found that a long-term irritant of mine, a certain Mr David Hine, had attempted to post another comment:

I have to admit that I’m not well up on the biblical references so I looked them up. Isaiah Chapter 40 Verse 22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

I don’t see any mention of the Hubble constant, nor indeed any statement that the stretching of the heavens follows a linear relation (Hubble’s Law).

As for Psalm 2, in the New International Version, Verse 1 reads:

Why do the nations conspire

and the peoples plot in vain?

I have only just now realized that the second part of this verse refers to the construction of graphs. Personally, I never plot in vain. I normally use python.

UPDATE: I have now received further information of the derivation of the Hubble constant straight from the horse’s ~~arse~~ mouth:

Unfortunately I am so lacking in mental equipment I can’t really understand this equation. It’s not even an equation actually because it doesn’t equate anything with anything.

Anyway, let’s look at the expression given in the above comment. A Megaparsec has the units of length. The speed of light has units of length/time, so whatever the formula calculates has units of length^{2} time^{-1}, which is dimensionally incorrect for the Hubble constant, which has units of time^{-1}.

Moreover, if I put values for *c*, π, 21 and 2 into the equation I don’t even get anything like 70.98047:

π^{21} ≈ 2.75 × 10^{10} (dimensionless).

2 × `a Mpc’ × c ≈ 2 × 3.086 ×10^{22} m × 3 × 10^{8} m s^{-1} ≈ 1.83 × 10^{31} m^{2} s^{-1}.

Thus the full expression has a value approximately 6.66 × 10^{20} m^{2} s^{-1}.

The correct value for the Hubble constant is about 2.2 × 10^{−18 }s^{−1}.

Completely wrong value and completely wrong dimensions. The first three figures of the answer may be significant however.

Here’s some reasoned criticism:

I’ve checked the above calculation and don’t see any mistakes. Perhaps I forgot to take away the number I first thought of…

Follow @telescoper

June 24, 2019 at 1:39 pm

“I have now received further information of the derivation of the Hubble constant straight from the horse’s arse mouth:”At the gravitational-lens conference in Melbourne in 1995, Bill Press introduced himself as the front end of the Press-Schechter horse. Paul Schechter was in the audience.

June 24, 2019 at 5:59 pm

As I recall he refused to give details of his calculation of the Hubble constant when pressed on a previous occasion via this blog, thereby requiring that his book giving the details be bought. As it was not free I declined. I did engage with him on the Bible verses he was using, disputing that they could be used in this way. Can you give the link to that thread please, Peter?

June 24, 2019 at 6:03 pm

I think it might be here.