Further speculation, on my part, regarding the Hubble constant, and why the different results? To raise a previous point I made, If we have an observer of an object, and the mass of the observer and object changes, then the relative distance between them also changes, if there mass reduces, then the distance between them relatively increases, but if there mass increases, then the distance between them relatively reduces? I raise a point with regard to the formula E = MC2 , If the mass varies, and the relative distance, as stated above, then for C the speed of light, to remain constant to the observer, time must change. And this has been proven by taking time readings at sea level and comparing it against time taken at the top of a mountain, So, as the earth rotates the value of E varies between sea level and a higher altitude, therefore M and time changes to keep C constant? So how does this relate to the Hubble constant? The sun rotates around in our galaxy, and the planets rotate around the sun, for half the year the planet Earth rotates in the same direction as the galaxy and the other half in the opposite direction as it orbits the Sun. This results in a change of the value E, which changes the value M and therefore time, So, I ask when calculating the Hubble constant is this fact taken into consideration, and also a passing observation if the mass changes, then the planet orbits around the Sun should be slightly off centre? Is that correct?
"Almost" Good Answers: