Mpc 170: Fill & Download for Free

Berkshire Hathaway:I do not think this needs introduction. With a robust track record and generating 20% annual return, one can count on Warren Buffet to beat S&P. Their class B shares are easily accessible by anyone as they currently trade at $170.BRK-B : Summary for Berkshire Hathaway Inc. New Com - Yahoo FinanceShort Gilts (UK Government Bonds):With inflation hitting at 2.9% on this month's inflation report and MPC members voting against rate hike by 5-3 which shocked the market since earlier meetings showed MPC members united on the issue.Not to mention, interest rates at historic low, it makes sense to short UK gilts as any rate hike will push the bond prices further down especially if we consider this in ten years time frame.Unfortunately the only security I could find that is accessible to retail investors is the following inverse Gilt ETP:Boost Gilts 10Y 3x Short Daily ETP ETFPlease note this is levered 3 times so make sure you adjust your risk accordingly.Renewable Energy and Semiconductor:I would consider this as an underdog and invest in renewable energy and semiconductors with slightly more exposure to semiconductors. My justification:Semiconductor:They are used in almost every electronic and technological device be it smart phones, car chargers, medical equipment, appliances. Living in an era where technology is the norm and is expected to grow further especially the fact that their demand will only increase if equipment development for renewable energy scale.Renewable Energy Equipment:People are interested in looking for alternative source of energy and I think this is the right time to enter the market. Saudi Arabia who is considered major player in Oil market is already looking into alternate source of income by setting up a sovereign wealth fund tells you that Oil rush might be at its end sooner rather than later.QCLN ETF: Free Real-time Quotes, Ratings, Holdings has 32% of its holding in semiconductor industry and 12% in renewable energy equipment. Sounds good to me.Disclaimer:The above references an opinion and is for information purposes only. It is not intended to be investment advice. Seek a duly licensed professional for investment advice.

The Hubble Constant is a parameter that probably changes over time. See: Surprise! The Hubble Constant Changes Over Time Although this parameter is not constant it is called mostly the Hubble Constant because it seems to present a fixed value at our present epoch. So, Victor Toth is right about that.I asked this question because I want to find out if there is a relation between the Hubble acceleration in the universe and the acceleration at the surface of planets.From our very well-known Newtonian equation we know:equation 1 ap being the acceleration at the surface of a planet, rp the radius of the planet and mp the mass of the planetThis equation 1 provides the acceleration at the surface of a planet. For the earth well-known 9.81 m/s2.Similarly, we find the acceleration at the edge of the universe by:Do we have some indication about the acceleration at the edge of the visible universe?Erik Verlinde in Emergent Gravity and the Dark UniverseNoted: c*Ho = aoa0 = Hubble acceleration at the edge of the universe. I note: au.Combining equation 2 and 3 we get:ap being the acceleration at the surface of a planet, rp the radius of the planet, and mp the mass of the planet.Combining equation 4 and 5 we get:On the LHS of equation 7, we got the Hubble acceleration per second.On the RHS we see the acceleration at the surface of a planet related to the radius, mass, and speed of light.In words equation 7 could be translated as: The Hubble acceleration is equal to the acceleration at the surface of a planet times the radius squared proportional to the mass of the planet TIMES the Mass of the universe proportional to the radius squared of the universe times the speed of light.The units between [brackets]It fits.Rearranging equation 7:YesG = GThe Newtonian Gravitational Constant in the universe that causes the acceleration at the edge of the universe is equal to the Newtonian Gravitational Constant that causes the acceleration at the surface of a planet.This equation confirms the insight that the Hubble parameter is the result of an acceleration times the Radius of the universe until it reaches the maximum possible speed of light at the edge of the visible universe.I derive the value for the Radius of the visible part of the universe:To indicate that I use 67.8 km/s/Mpc for the Hubble parameter I write H0.678https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_lawA Mpc equals 3.085677580E+22 meterIf we use 67.8 km/s/Mpc we get the value of 2.1972E-18 per secondau = H0.678 * c: The acceleration at the edge of the visible universe equals the Hubble acceleration times lightspeed:Calculated result for the Mass of the visible universe: 1.8374E+53 kilogram based on equation 15. These values are interdependent and are fixed by definition.Let’s calculate that equation 7 now:Result: 2.19720418E-18Multiplying for Mpc 3.085677580E+22 I present our H0.678:67.8 km/secondBack to my question here above.What does my answer here indicate?I think it indicates:1. In the visible universe, all macroscopic objects are interconnected. If the Hubble Constant presents a universal expansion acceleration, then it must also be related to the motions of planets in our solar system. I think equation 17 shows that relation.2. The Hubble parameter presents an acceleration that confirms the expansion of the universe. Commonly is accepted that the universe is like a raisin bread with rising of the bread, but not rising of the raisins. I think that also the raisins are rising. The expanding universe contains expanding masses. While expanding they increase their orbital radii and so they expand in space.3. The tiny expansion at the surface of planets and moons can be seen from the rifts on the ocean floors, crack lines, volcanoes, and drifting continents. See: Evidences of the expanding Earth from space-geodetic data over solid land and sea level rise in recent two decades“ Combining the expansion rates of land part and oceanic part, we conclude that the Earth is expanding at a rate of 0.35 ± 0.47 mm/a (mm per year) in recent two decades“ Yes, a part is subduction, but a greater part is expansion. See: my paper Google earth expansion where you can find the Google-earth coordinates and see my video Expansion of the universe and earth4. The Gravitational Constant can be split into two parts: One part representing the inflow of energy and the other part the tiny expansion (see: my video Splitting the Gravitational Constant.)In Equations of significance Tufail Abbas Ruud Loeffen, you will find many other calculations that all result in the Hubble Constant with a value of 67.8 km /second see row 152-170.Extended explication you will find in my book (free download) CON-FUSING GRAVITATION. Applying the Lorentz Transformation of Mass-Energy

(1) Has the Steady State Theory been debunked?(2) Are there any respectable alternative theories to the Big Bang?Short answers:Yes. The “Steady State” cosmology hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked.No. If by “respectable alternatives” you mean hypotheses published in peer-reviewed papers or journals, documenting observations (and interpretations of collected data) and results of scientific experiments, making testable predictions, and explaining all currently established physics better than — or at least just as well as — the currently “most popular” model — the Lambda-CDM model, then the answer is no — there is currently no model that is considered a “respectable alternative” among “mainstream” cosmologists.My own (layman cosmologist) idea of what might be going on does not qualify, but for what it’s worth, it goes like this (I call it the Timelessly Recycling Universe Energy (TRUE) conjecture):Stephen Hawking suggested — 42 years ago — that the immensely powerful gravitational fields surrounding gravitationally collapsed stars (“black holes”) could hypothetically make a BH transform “virtual” particles to “real” particles (Source: Particle Creation by Black Holes, S. Hawking (1975)),I do not know whether it would/could be physically possible, but if someone with the needed QM savvy, building upon Hawking’s “Particle Creation” math — could the immense energies (of a BH gravitational field) somehow assist in “recycling” BH degenerate matter, by somehow “pushing out” enough energy to form the two lightest elements in a 3:1 ratio (roughly three H for every He (not enough energy to transform anything more massive)), far out into surrounding space …Hawking invoked hypothetical “quantum gravity” (and, unfortunately, “negative mass,” which IMO is questionable), could his hypotheses be modified, adapted, or extended? Maybe this could explain the “haloes” observed to be surrounding galaxies — and maybe also account for considerable amounts of the “missing mass” called “dark matter”? Note also that atomic hydrogen (H) is “easy” to detect in space, but molecular hydrogen (H[math]_2[/math]) is notoriously difficult to detect. However, about ten years ago, new observations were made (cut from First Extragalactic Direct Detection of Large-Scale Molecular Hydrogen in the Disk of NGC 891, Valentijn & van der Werf, The Astrophysical Journal 522(1):L29, December 2008. (bold italics in original)):For H[math]_2[/math] ortho/para ratios of 2-3, the cool gas has typical edge-on column densities (l-3)[math]×[/math]10[math]^{23}[/math] cm^[math]{-2}[/math] (or [math]≈[/math] 3 000 M[math]_☉[/math]pc[math]^{-2}[/math]) in which case it outweighs the H I by a factor of 5-15. This factor matches well the mass required to resolve the problem of the missing matter of spiral galaxies within at least the optical disk.If — and that’s a big “if” — hydrogen and helium atoms could be “pushed out” of a black hole (similar to the QM process hypothesized in Hawking’s “black hole evaporation” (which appears to be generally accepted by the astrophysics community)), could this possibly be the origin of Galactic Haloes?Galactic Halo images lifted from www.nasa.gov page NASA's Hubble Confirms That Galaxies Are the Ultimate Recyclers.Galactic Halo image lifted from www.sciencedaily.com page Stellar archeology traces Milky Way's history. Cut from the original image caption:Milky Way galaxy's inner and outer halos. A halo is a spherical cloud of stars surrounding a galaxy. Astronomers have proposed that the Milky Way's halo is composed of two populations of stars.This could possibly also explain the origin of the enormous “gas filaments” observed to exist in the intergalactic voids:Dim Matter image lifted from www.admissions.caltech.edu page The Intergalactic Medium Unveiled: Caltech's Cosmic Web Imager Directly Observes "Dim Matter." Original caption:Comparison of Lyman Alpha blob observed with cosmic web imager and a simulation of the cosmic web based on theoretical predictions.Several such “gas filaments” have been observed. Here’s one far distant case:“Bridge” of Dark Matter image from original found at cerncourier.com page Dark-matter filament binds galaxy clusters. (I have added yellow text and “gravitational fields” to the original image).The probability for H/He isotopes to “pop through” would presumably depend on the distance from the originating galaxy, as well as on the proximity of other galaxies. This suggestion appears to be supported by recent observations:“Overlapping BH fields of influence” image adaptation of original found in arxiv.org paper The Arecibo Galaxy Environment Survey VII: A Dense Filament With Extremely Long Hi Streams. Original image caption:Figure 4. Integrated flux contours (over the velocity range 11,880 to 12,240 km s[math]^{−1}[/math]) of AF7448_252 (north) which is linked to an edge-on disc (AF7448_245) approximately 16’ south (projected length approximately 800 kpc at a distance of 170 Mpc). A third object to the west (AF7448_253) may also be interacting with the system.Again, it certainly looks as if galaxies are “bridged” by enormous “gas filaments” … These are actual observations: “overlapping” galactic halo regions also appear to contain more (and denser) molecular hydrogen filaments (which would make sense).Quantum FluctuationsAccording to some quantum theorists (notably, late theoretical physicist John A. Wheeler), the “quantum foam” fluctuates between potential and actual particle existence, with virtual particles-antiparticles continuously appearing and “almost immediately” self-annihilating. According to www.physlink.com article Where did all the stuff in the universe come from (Bold emphasis added):Stephen Hawking has shown that the gravitational field around such a hole would give enough energy to the quantum foam to promote the particles into real existence. Calculations show that in the big bang the initial extreme conditions would also have been enough to create real particles out of the gravitational energy of the rapidly expanding universe.No kidding … Could the energy needed for such transformations be provided by black holes, whose enormous densities might make nucleon-sized Einstein-Rosen bridges, a.k.a. “wormholes”) appear between a BH and its surrounding intergalactic space, “pushing” energy through — creating an “excess energy pressure” which is equalized by the actualization of H and He isotopes, far from the originating hole? Apparently, this makes sense to professor Hawking …“Empty space” of the intergalactic voids could thus be a “bubbling foam” of energy-to-atom transformations, which on a macroscopic scale appears “empty” — these “fluctuations” presumably occur on the Planck scale (≈ 10[math]^{−35}[/math] meter), and most tend to immediately cancel out (see also Can virtual particles be 'boosted' into becoming real particles by fields other than gravity??), and the needed average rate of matter “popping through” is said to be rather modest … according to www.hep.shef.ac.uk page 20th Century Cosmology, slide The Steady State model (bold emphasis added):For a critically dense universe with H[math]_0[/math] [math]=[/math] 72 km/s/Mpc this gives a creation rate of 6.8[math]×[/math]10[math]^{−44}[/math] kg m[math]^{−3}[/math] s[math]^{−1}[/math] — about one hydrogen atom per cubic kilometre per year — this is obviously not detectable by reasonable technology!The crucial point here is that if processes as hinted at above can explain galactic haloes and intergalactic gas filaments, then “creation” of “new” energy (mass) is neither happening — this would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy) — nor needed!Instead, through this interplay of black holes (maximum entropy) and “quantum vacuum” (“recycled” degenerate matter, minimum entropy), energy could be continuously and forever “recycled” (and as this is a dynamic equilibrium model, those pesky initial (BB) and gravitational (BH) “singularities” would also be avoided)!Space ExpansionThe currently accepted interpretation of what the collected CMB observational data means, is that space is expanding, due to a mystical and (so far) unknown force dubbed ”Dark Energy”. This expansion could be an illusion, if the “shape” of the Universe happens to be toroid (i.e., like a doughnut). Here’s a cut from my answer to the Quora question Is the universe likely to be shaped like a torus?:I don’t know how likely any one “Universe shape” is over any other, but the hypothesis that the “shape” might be a torus (a “closed manifold” — think donut) has been proposed. I for one think that the idea has a lot going for it — but I’m just a speculating layman ... One supporter of the idea, who is a pro, is MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark (“Mad Max”); Wikipedia article Doughnut Theory of the Universe says:“Analysis by Max Tegmark, Angélica de Oliveira-Costa, and Andrew J. S. Hamilton of University of Colorado provided fresh evidence supporting a torus-shaped universe.” [ … ]“The Torus shows us how energy moves in its most balanced dynamic flow process. The important thing to understand about the torus is that it represents a process, not just a particular form. A torus consists of a central axis with a vortex at both ends and a surrounding coherent field. Energy flows in one vortex, through the central axis, out the other vortex, and then wraps around itself to return to the first incoming vortex. The simplest description of its overall form is that of a donut, though it takes many different shapes, depending upon the medium in which it exists. For example, a smoke ring in air or a bubble ring in water are both very donut shaped. And yet an apple or an orange, which are both torus forms, are more overtly spherical.”Horn Torus animated .gif autolinked from www.horntorus.com, page Standard Dynamic Horn Torus.With the above twisting and turning toroid in mind, consider this “grand scale” possibility:“Size numbers” are of course just “picked out of a hat,” only meant to indicate the scale. This hypothetical “toroid Universe” is forever (no “creation”) rotating majestically in two perpendicular planes — which could account for the illusion of an “expanding Universe.”Explaining the CMBIn a 1940 paper titled Evidence For the Molecular Origin of Some Hitherto Unidentified Interstellar Lines, Canadian astronomer Andrew McKellar (1910-1960) published his findings regarding:excellent coincidences obtained between the wave lengths of three of the unidentified, sharp, interstellar lines and lines arising from the lowest states of the CH, NaH, and CN molecules (from spectral analysis).Based on data obtained, McKellar stated that “the maximum effective temperature of interstellar space would be 2.7°K” — with no reference whatsoever to some “ghost radiation” relic from the “birth of the Universe,” 25 years before Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize for literally stumbling upon the same “temperature,” now lauded as the “predicted” CMB, one of the three “major pillars” upon which the big bang is resting. Unfortunately, McKellar left this world too early (in 1960), at the age of 50.In a letter from Irving Ezra Segal. published in The New York Times of May 13, 1992 (shortly after the discovery of the CMB fluctuations), Mr Segal writes (bold emphasis added):The marginally observable fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation are likely to be confirmed if only because such fluctuations would be a concomitant of almost any known type of possible physical origin for this radiation. They are not at all uniquely indicative of a Big Bang.”See also Segal’s 1987 paper The local redshift-distance relation and spatial uniformity.In 2005, 65 years after McKellar, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge writes (in The Case Against Primordial Nucleosynthesis, Proceedings International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 228, 2005):It fits well to end the CMB section with a quote from Swedish plasma physicist and Nobel laureate (Physics, 1970) Hannes Alfvén (source: www.nature.com article Interpretation of observed cosmic microwave background radiation):ConclusionNo “new physics” needed, just forget the “big bang” (and “inflation” … (and “dark energy … (and “space expansion” … (and “dark matter” … )))) — an impressively close shave at Occam’s barbershop!The “TRUE Universe” is timelessly and forever, now by now, “rejuvenating” its energy as it keeps unfolding.But — to paraphrase Admiral Leonard H. "Bones" McCoy — “I’m a programmer, dammit, not an astrophysicist” …I need to learn a lot more, so if you know, please let me know what is wrong with my guesswork, and why this would (or could) never work!