Might all forces propagate at speed of gravity?

<font size="4"><b>Ooooooooops!</b></font id="size4"> I made one whopper of a math error in calculating the volumetric version of Hubble's constant. So gather 'round, everybody; this is your chance to gloat and snear.

Taking H0 to be 2.5 x 10^-18/s, I cubed that to get approximately 10^-55. Thinking that was the volumetric rate of expansion of space, I calculated the expansion of a cubic meter in one second. Assuming that a median-size ether-foam bubble is a Planck length cubed (10^105 bubbles per cubic meter), I deduced that ether-foam bubbles un-pop at a rate of 10^52 per second. I have been quoting that number for about 18 months.
Last night, while trying to get to sleep, it hit me. The correct conversion from linear to volumetric expansion is (1 + H0)^3 -1 = 3H0 + 3H0^2 + H0^3. The square and cube terms are insignificant, so the correct volumetric expansion rate is 3H0 = 7.5 x 10^-18/s. The correct rate for un-popping ether-foam bubbles is therefor approximately 10^88 per cubic meter per second.

I was only off by about 36 orders of magnitude! Not even close enough for government work. Do I take the prize for the biggest math error in history?

Now, I have to go back and correct the error in as many places as possible, but many of them are not editable. I keep saying, I'm no mathematician, but I'll never live this one down.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

Phil,

In the recent past I have asked you to consider spending some time studying our ideas, so that you can comment intelligently on a comparison between them and your ideas. You have agreed to do this, but have made little or no progress that I am able to detect.

I realize that it is a big chore. It took me several months of pretty much full time effort to master the basics, and I'm still working on mastering the details. In fact, I'm continuing the development of the details in collaboration with others. But you owe it to yourself (and your ideas) to make the effort. There are <u>so many strong parallels</u> between your stuff and our stuff. It is certainly possible, perhaps even likely, that you have some ideas that will help us. If you ever do get around to learning our stuff well enough to notice these paralles and comment on them, I predict we will be able to have some really interesting discussions.

From time to time I do try to inject some of our thinking into your discussions, but since you are not yet familliar with our approach it mostly does no lasting good.

I'll be waiting over there, by the bar, when you are ready.