Wrong i think.

The speed is

v=HR

R distance between galaxies

Juan Weisz My statement about the Hubble radius is correct. This is the distance from our location to the location where particles (galaxies) are receding from us at the speed of light. You also have the correct equation, but you simply did not make the calculation. There is a debate about the exact value of the Hubble parameter. The average between the two debated numbers is about 70 km/s/Mpc. This converts to H ≈ 2.28x10-18 m/s/m. Next, 13.8x109 light years converts to 1.3x1026 meters. Therefore,

v = HR = 2.28x10-18 m/s/m x 1.3x1026 m ≈ 3x108 m/s

This is approximately the speed of light at a distance equal to our Hubble radius.

John A. Macken John, of course it can easily be shown in iSpace theory that v=H0*R=c is exactly 299792458m/s (in iSpace-SI aka MKSA/SI unit system):

Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...

This hoewever does by no means allow to assume that physics would change behind this (seemingly) „ultimate barrier“ - we just cannot ever look behind there - in example when we assume a (Hoyle) steady-state type of universe.

Assuming a big-bang model however, we can be sure not to find any galaxy structures already at „bang time“ (whatever that is physically, I personally don’t buy into any such negative quantum vacuum starting stuff model), which iSpace theory is able to predict at exactly 13.51… billion years from now.

James Webb and following telescopes will imho be able to answer (and decide!) this question once and for all. And my personal believe (even iSpace scientifically by now not justifiable in any way) in this is there will be found galaxies already at „bang time“ proving big-bang model and with this *whole of current cosmology to be entirely wrong*. As much as can be, actually.

John A. Macken And - yes - „space is a sonic medium„ but if it is also one „with a privileged frame of reference“ (in the sense that there is a priviledged frame at all) is not one and the same. It is possible that mass (galaxies, stars, planets down to a single electron) carry their own sonic medium with them, creating some very different density gradients between.

This would explain all MM style experiments “null results„ as implemented in a typical lab frame on surface of earth. Also some recent one way speed of light null result of an imho both experimentally and theoretically very careful crafted experiment of Hanna Edwards could be explained by such model, without thoughtless dismissing any ether type model as such.

Ok, the discussion is if the Hubble expansion ocurrs everywhere or not.

It is logical to suppose that it does; on the other hand it does not seem to apply to some local cluster.

I was asking that question myself.

It may be that in some local short R radius it does happen, but so far not measurable?

Or because of local gravitational effects?

Any difference would not go very well with homogeneous universe, raisin cake model of expansion, etc.

Then you only talk about the "visible universe" If c is the limit, you can even doubt that the outer portion exists.

Note v=HR implies a=Hv = HHR, the ball still accelerates outwards, contrary to c as the limit.

Perhaps v=HR is only an intermediate sort of formula, cannot be extended too short an R, or too large an R??

Juan Weisz An „intermediate formula„ as suggested to you above is excluded by exact quantum geometric relation as revealed by iSpace theory. We either get c = 299792458m/s exact - or not. But we did, so case closed.

Cristian

Based on what other "exact" constants? I you used H, you are far from exactness.

Perhaps from some other more precise way?

I always hear about debates on the value of H, or if it depends on R.

What Quantum geometric relation ?? Sounds suspicious to me.

So far it sounded like you or John used the accepted c to define an R. Thats very different.

Again, I dont believe you can use expansion in this extreme.

Juan Weisz Juan, please read into (best all) of iSpace papers of mine as published and freely available on my RG home to follow up why exactness is an intrinsic geometric feature of „changed distance definition“ based design: results imply a zero error bar.

No comsolidated theory of quantum

geometry exists and all physics has

Error barrs.

Juan Weisz Juan … and with all due respect - instead of *reading* first - getting a chance to learn something new - always reflex „praying“ style answering RG questions is imho unfortunately not helpful for discussion.

Again: iSpace theory is a multiplicative exact by design geometric (10D aka 4D+6D+1D) hybrid model for spacetime based on changed distance definition, per se leading integer geometry wise to a zero error bar (below is not theory, but simple example of application related to Hubble H0):

Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...

Most scientists do also lack to understand the simple fact that emission and absorption of light is - surprisingly - unrelated to Heisenberg uncertainty principle and for this reason alone fully compatible to iSpace - no other existing physical model explains this stunning physical fact and hence most but all standard books and works avoid to note or even hint to this fact (but trust me, real experts I talked to are fully aware of this „mystery“ - not in any way mysterious from iSpace theoretical point of view.

For deep(er) introduction to iSpace theory I do repeat myself to please read my (either only newer peer-reviewed, the IMC-2015 conference papers or best (as suggested above): all of my papers on RG.

Unfortunately RG removed the very conveniant project section some time ago, containing some really good introduction to iSpace integer geometric model. There is also some very helpful 2h+ introducery video in Youtube explaining this model from scratch (in the sense of iSpace for absolute beginners):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhGeANkwUME

Any written typical paper style document would not (and will never) be able to reflect the mathematically very simple, but conceptually quite unusual "changed distance definiton" based circle base geometry.

For a short yet advanced intro into especially (imho outright stunning) iSpace-IQ unit system one needs to "just" take a line-by-line look into the didactically carefully crafted Mathematica equations (which there are about 200 to follow), giving a near complete *advanced* picture of the need for and abilites of iSpace-IQ unit system - the first of its kind to the best of my knowledge - able to do away with all human artefacts whatsoever (like 299792458 [m/s] and 4*Pi/10^7 [Vs/Am]) and an avarage read time of 1/2 to 1h:

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

The only so-far peer-reviewed paper (a very short read on mainly FSC alpha):

Article New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...

Many thanks for anyones time reading into iSpace theoretical framework, with its really unusual geometrical concepts unheard as of now in the scientific literature!

Cristian

There is just too many

things wrong.

Principaly the involvement

Of quantum notions in this

discussion.

Afnd you dont get the quantum right

Juan Weisz Your replies are neither helpful nor constructive, and I bet you did not follow a single link given to read before answering. Sorry, but I have to opt out here at this point. Science is for discovery, not right or wrong.

John A. Macken > "Is the space beyond our Hubble radius different from the space near Earth?"

No, it must be the same! Hubble's law, now known as the Hubble–Lemaître law, and the corresponding Big Bang theory are modern cosmological myths sustained by official physics.

"Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology!" Article Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's M...

Hubble himself never claimed the ownership of this law, till his death: "… if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principles of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results." ("Effects of Red Shifts on the Distribution of Nebulae" by E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936)

The universe is Infinite, Eternal and Ever-changing:

The Limits of Mathematics, Special Issue 64 / April 2019

http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf

"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies" :

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

I keep a broad mind about this.

Photon scattering in between

cannot be so easily discarded.

Lets try looking at this a different way.

Another thought experiment:

Twins are placed in rooms next to each other. The only way they can communicate is by looking at each other via a mirror placed in the corridor. Each measures the distance to the other as the length to the mirror in the corridor x2. Now start moving the mirror away from the twins. The distance between the twins is increasing! Space is expanding, yet neither twin is moving. Accelerate the mirror – now we have redshift, and as the distance increases, each twin also sees the other as younger, since it takes time for the light to travel.

If one twin opened the door between the rooms (new physics, wormholes or whatever)—wow-- no redshift, no expansion, each twin as old as the other. No need for exotica beyond the door.

No matter the distance and velocity of the mirror, nether twin can see the other earlier than they were born. They did not exist. The Hubble radius is about our time and our space, there was no time "before", there was no space "before".

Was there a Mummy and Daddy space "before"? Maybe, but that is not our time and our space, and we are made only of our spacetime, no escape.

Each time a photon scatters

THERE is a small red shift that

can simulate doppler. Greater distance,

Greater shift.

So all this subject can just go

Go puff.

John, I think you should read my latest article. It provides the answer to your question in the simplest way possible.

https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/accelerated-motion-towards-relativistic-velocities-described-by-newtonian-mechanics.pdf