🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <92216.155158DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) says:
>>
>>In article <1468500004@igc.org> anlyyao@igc.org (An-Ly Yao) writes:
>>
>>>Why and in relation to what is the "Hubble constant" constant?
>>
>>It's not constant in any profound sense.  To the extent that the
>>universe is expanding at a constant rate, the Hubble constant is that
>>constant.  

>This needs some clarification.  Even in the absence of deceleration,
>the Hubble constant changes with time.  

>If one is clever, one notices that the dimensionality of the Hubble
>constant is inverse time.  In fact, in a big bang cosmology it tells you
>to within a numerical factor the age of the universe.  

Thanks.  I wasn't being clever!!!  So the Hubble constant times the age
of the universe is a bit more "constant" (with time) than Hubble's
constant, but deceleration means even it's not constant.  Let's call it
the Hubble variable, how about.