I graduated from college with 81 credits in Math. Why so much? It was the only subject where I could consistantly get an A without studying.

Around 1976, when my math skills were still hot, I had the idea that the universe was expanding equally in all places – that hubble’s constant was indeed constant everywhere. That means, though, that things far away are moving near the speed of light. You calculate the sum of relativistic speeds using the hyberbolic tangent of a hyperbolic arctangent. In 1976 I was able to integrate this and come up with a formula to express the relative expansion at any distance. Hubble’s constant was onlyone factor in a more complex expression with e and c squared.

My formula assumed that no matter where you go in the universe, there you are – the expansion is exactly the same. I realize that this might not be the case, but the assumption that it might be true gives a very neat way of calculating the expansion.

One of the more interesting results is that the hubble constant is espressed with c squared and e and in the formula, has the same negative order of magnitude (smallness) as Plank’s constant and numerically was similar (for the few data points that I had at that time). I thought it would be neat if my Hubble and Plank were the same number. (Thinking about it now, this might have been wishfull thinking.)

Since then I have forgotten everything that I know about calculus. I am a programmer and I have only used simple arithmetic these last thirty years.

When I read about Hubble’s constant and scientists rethinking it, I wonder if they are doing the math correctly. Are they using a relativistic yardstick?

“Universe Might be Bigger and Older than Expected“A research team led by Alceste Bonanos at the Carnegie Institution of Washington has found that the Triangulum Galaxy, also known as M33, is about 15 percent farther away from our own Milky Way than previously calculated.”