These equations just don't make sense, since nothing is defined!

There are only two cosmological parameters: Newton's constant and the cosmological constant. All other parameters can be expressed in terms of them. Newton's constant and the cosmological constant can be measured and have been measured. There's nothing enigmatic about them-what's not at all obvious is finding the matter content that enters in Einstein's equations, in order to understand the properties of those solutions that describe the geometry of our Universe.

Am I correct in assuming that by HA and H0 you mean the Hubble parameter for the entire universe resp. locally? RA would then be the world radius. However, RG allows the spelling HA, H0 and RA. That would then be nothing other than the well-known relationship for the expansion rate v=H·r. At this point, the question leaves open, what the exact values are.

Stam Nicolis recommends using the standard model for the calculation. However, H0 is based on the assumption that there was a BB. And with the standard model this is not even secured.

Your expression c=HA·RA points to a so called LEHU, a Lightspeed Expanding Hypergeometrical Universe. If you are interested in non-standard models see

Preprint The Metric Universe

with HA=3/2·H0 especially Section 4.5. and 4.6. and Figure 44b. And from another author Marco Pereira using the ΛCDM-Model with a different ansatz but similar results

Article The Optical Path of Ancient Photons and the Supernova Project

Btw. he actualized his H0 to 68.68 kms–1Mpc–1.

The Hubble parameter does NOT assume a Big Bang-it's defined from the scale factor of the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and there's nothing that requires this parameter to be a constant.

Dear Stam Nicolis

>>The Hubble parameter does NOT assume a Big Bang...

OK, then your proposal would be a third possibility to solve Jamil Kooli 's problem. Could you please explain, if the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric allows a LEHU. I think, the world radius may be greater than cT then. Because Jamil wanted to use dark matter the standard model seems to be the better model but it's neither perfect. WIth dark energy that's a completely different story.

Stam Nicolis

Since we last spoke, I developed the theory further and created educational videos.

Feel free to ask questions.

Marco Pereira

There is a theory that reproduces Einstein's successes and avoids Einstein's failures and that is Quantum Mechanical... It is called The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU).

HU Basics

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

Recasting Newton's Laws of Dynamics in the Space Stress Strain Paradigm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w-5u1WAp6o

and here is how I challenged Einstein's theory:

https://www.quora.com/How-would-anyone-defend-general-relativity-from-Marco-Pereiras-HU-challenge/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

Here is my take on the Dark Stuff:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-status-as-of-2019-of-the-search-for-dark-matter/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

HU achievements

https://thehypergeometricaluniverseachievements.quora.com/What-are-the-Hypergeometrical-Universe-Theory-accomplishments-1

HU explaining JWST observations:

https://thehypergeometricaluniverseachievements.quora.com/Can-Dr-Marco-Pereira-explain-the-observations-by-JWST-Space-Telescope-1

Here, I explained why the Universe has four spatial dimensions by calculating the probability of universes of different dimensionalities.

https://www.quora.com/Can-Dr-Marco-Pereira-explain-WHY-we-live-in-a-3D-Universe/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - replacement to the Big Bang

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHK-Lyb7NfM

Big Pop Article

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0106/v1

Here I created a map for the observable and unobservable Universe and located Earth on it:

https://www.quora.com/According-to-the-Hypergeometrical-Universe-Theory-HU-where-is-our-universe-within-the-hyperspherical-hypersurface/answer/Marco-Pereira-1?ch=2&srid=3aDA

Here, is how I created the map of the Hyperspherical Universe from the knowledge obtained by the Planck Satellite:

3D galaxy density map of the current universe:

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

In how many ways can Dr. Marco Pereira prove Einstein wrong

https://www.quora.com/In-how-many-ways-can-Dr-Marco-Pereira-prove-that-Einstein-was-wrong/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

The MAIN REASONS Einstein's Theory is wrong: a) Einstein missed an extra spatial dimension, b) The theory should use ABSOLUTE VELOCITY instead of calling everything Relative.

The first way Dr. Marco Pereira proves Einstein wrong.

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/What-is-the-first-way-Dr-Marco-Pereira-proved-Einstein-was-wrong-1

The second way Dr. Marco Pereira proves Einstein wrong.

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/What-was-the-second-way-Dr-Marco-Pereira-proved-Einstein-wrong-1

The third way Dr. Marco Pereira proves Einstein wrong.

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/What-was-the-third-way-Dr-Marco-Pereira-proved-Einstein-wrong-1

How to get GR success without GR

https://qr.ae/pyaD1M

For HIGH IQ people

https://www.quora.com/Would-it-be-possible-for-someone-to-have-such-a-high-IQ-that-they-perceive-reality-drastically-differently-from-others-Almost-like-a-new-dimension/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

REFERENCES

Smarandache, F. (2007). Hadron Models and related New Energy issues. "Hadron models and related New Energy issues" by Florentin Smarandache

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/math_fsp/283/

Smarandache, F., & Christianto, V. (2007). Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Supersymmetry Supersymmetry. "Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion, and Supersymmetry" by Florentin Smarandache and Victor Christianto

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/math_fsp/76/

Pereira, M. (2017). The Hypergeometrical Universe: Cosmogenesis, Cosmology and Standard Model. World Scientific News, 82, 1–96.

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WSN-82-2017-1-90.pdf

Pereira, M. (2018). The Case for a Fourth Spatial Dimension and the Hyperspherical Force. World Scientific News, 98, 127–139.

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WSN-98-2018-127-139.pdf

Pereira, M. (2018). The Hypergeometrical Force: The Coma Cluster without Dark Matter. World Scientific News, 101, 222–228.

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/WSN-101-2018-222-228.pdf

Pereira, M. (2019). The Optical Path of Ancient Photons and the Supernova Project. World Scientific News, 130, 195–215.

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/WSN-130-2019-195-215.pdf

Pereira, M. (2017). The Hypergeometrical Universe: Cosmogenesis, Cosmology and Standard Model. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, 17(5).

https://globaljournals.org/GJSFR_Volume17/3-The-Hypergeometrical-Universe.pdf

Pereira, M. A. (2010). The Hypergeometrical Universe: Cosmology and Standard Model. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1316(1).

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3536448

Marco Pereira. The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - Equation of State, this article.

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202201.0106/v1

Stam Nicolis and Gerd Pommerenke

You said: another author Marco Pereira using the ΛCDM-Model with a different ansatz but similar results

I don't use LCDM model and I don't get similar results. I use a Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Hypersurface as the topology for the Universe and an epoch-dependent G. The reason for that is explained in this simple video:

HU Basics

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

Then I correct the SN1a Absolute Luminosity to reflect the corresponding epoch (G is inversely proportional to the 4D radius).

That allows me to parameterless predict the SN1a distances from their redshifts.

Hence, the distances that my model OBSERVE are different than the distances that Dr. Riess observed because I don't use the Stellar Candles Hypothesis.

The updated redshift is 69.69 km/(s.Mpc) which corresponds to a 4D radius of 14.10E9 lyr.

The optical path of ancient photons is defined by self-similar curves where the traversed distance by the projection of the photon path on the current universe is the same as the traversed distance by the universe itself (difference in 4D radii).

This defines the path where the momentum loss rate is constant with absolute time or de Broglie step (in HU the Universe expands on a stepwise expansion where the step is the Compton Wavelength of a Hydrogen Atom).

The cosmic distance ladder is given simply by d(z) = z/(1+z) in a normalized distance (normalized by the 14.01E9 4D radius). That is the solid line shown in the plots corresponding to HU predictions.

They can be called predictions because HU derived the G-dependence of the SN1a Absolute Luminosity to be between G^{-3} and G^{-3.5}. The observed dependence was G^{-3.33}.

Feel free to ask questions.

Dear Marco Pereira

Sorry, I took the L-CDM from your keywords but your's Is a completely different approach also as with my model and you got similar results like me, not like the standard model (you H0=69.69 sorry not 68.68 I wrote it down from my head, me H0=68.62, your angle β=45°, my angle β=44.86993° φ in fact). You should not write the whole reference sermon of the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU). That could overwhelm a beginner. Well, you addressed it to Stam Nicolis but your second posting was more informative.

The data that are relevant for cosmology refer to classical, not quantum, gravity, that's why it's incorrect to claim that a quantum model could resolve the tension between two different ways of measuring the Hubble parameter.

Dear Gerd Pommerenke

I corrected this because one of my theory's main achievements is replacing LCDM and General Relativity.

If someone ends up with the perception that I comply with L-CDM, then my work is wasted. I do comply with the underlying Supernova observations.

You are lucky that you got the attention of Dr. Stam Nicolis

He is generous with his attention and I benefited from talking to him in the past.

I created a discussion session here for my theory achievements. Unfortunately, I cannot find the link to the Discussion in this site.

It is not among my questions, or questions I follow, etc...and the discussions are not searchable. it is amazing.

Cheers,

Marco Pereira