[Senator Bedfellow]

That's actually not a problem for my math, but for Inflationary Theory. Inflation is already coming up with 123 AU's (instead of 1 AU) between the Earth and Sun (with distance 0 at t=0).

That's quite a trick, considering that the expansion rate at distance d = 0 is zero.

Here's the only tip I'm going to give you, in the only post I'm going to make to you on this ridiculous waste of time - the rate changes as a function of distance. That means you cannot solve this algebraically, as you've attempted so hopelessly to do. You're going to have to go purchase a calculus book and learn how to solve integrals to find the distance between two points as a function of time and the Hubble constant.

[Southack]

"That's quite a trick, considering that the expansion rate at distance d = 0 is zero."

That's yet another problem with Inflationary Theory's math model (especially at t=0 for the universe).

You're confusing Inflationary Theory's math problems with my own, however. I did the math to show that Inflationary Theory makes erroneous predictions.

You're attempting to latch onto those math problems as if they are mine; they aren't...they simply further discredit the very theory that I disproved mathematically in post #381.

If you want, you can start t=0 at .5 AU or any other starting distance greater than 0, but the math gets even worse for Inflationary Theory. It still gives you the wrong answer, so you don't have to use my d=0 at t=0.

[Southack]

"Here's the only tip I'm going to give you, in the only post I'm going to make to you on this ridiculous waste of time - the rate changes as a function of distance. That means you cannot solve this algebraically, as you've attempted so hopelessly to do. You're going to have to go purchase a calculus book and learn how to solve integrals to find the distance between two points as a function of time and the Hubble constant."

Right, right...even though I'm the one who showed my math, line by line in post #381...and even though you can't write the first equation of what you're babbling about above, I'm the one who is wrong.

Uh, huh.

No wonder that you fled this thread rather than post actual rebuttal math to disprove me...