Dear Andreas.

Thanks for the correction on the correct spelling of Hubble, I appreciate your help. It would grate on my nerves a little too. ops:

(My spell check allows Hubbell, probably after the Pitcher Carl Owen, and I just remembered in my mind visually two ll’s with Hubble, probably due to his middle name being Powell. (Hubble, Edwin Powell)

Regarding the issue of the age of stars, I must admit that the amount of discrepancy has become less, depending upon whom you talk to. The leading advocate of the age discrepancy of stars is, or has been, Robert Kirshner. http://www.harvard.edu/hco/astro/peo.../kirshner.htmlof Harvard. Two years ago it was an issue he normally presented to his astronomy classes, I am not sure what he teaches now.

The age of stars within Globular Clusters has been slowly massaged in the last few years into conformance to the age of the universe, with the youngest possible range in the age of stars within these clusters fitting into the oldest possible age of the universe; !4 billion years, give or take a billion years.

One thing to note, if the Hubble constant is constant, the age of the universe is ok, but if the rate of expansion was faster in the past, then the age problem reappears. It is likely that the rate of expansion of the universe was much faster in the past, this is the only way galaxies could avoid being gravitationally drawn back to each other. If this is the case, then the age of the universe is not 1/H but something smaller.

In my theory the rate of expansion is not linear, so the age of the universe is much less, something between 6.5 to 8 billion years.

Does it really make any sense that the rate of expansion is constant? If so, why? If there is an apparent “acceleration” shouldn’t there be a theoretical reason that conforms to the observed rate of expansion?

Thanks

Snowflake