"By characterizing the detailed structure of the cosmic microwave background fluctuations, WMAP has accurately determined the basic cosmological parameters, including the Hubble constant, to better than 5%. This measurement is completely independent of traditional measurements using Cepheid variables and other techniques. The current results show the Hubble Constant to be 73.5 (km/sec)/Mpc (give or take 3.2 (km/sec)/Mpc). If the WMAP data is combined with other cosmological data, the best estimate is 70.8 (km/sec)/Mpc (give or take 1.6 (km/sec)/Mpc). These results assume that the universe is spatially flat, which is consistent with all available data. However, if we do not make this assumption, the uncertainty in the Hubble constant increases to 4 (km/sec)/Mpc, or slightly over 5%.2"

70.8 (km/sec)/Mpc == 70.8 km per second per 3.26 million light years and why you have three factors here has to do with the fact that it is space that seems to grow expanding as rings on the water, which means that 70.8/km per sec is only correct up to one Mpc (Megaparsec).

Which if we downgrade it to distance per light year then would become truly minuscule. - 78 000 m per second split with 3.26 million light years - (approximately 0.024 m or, 2.4 cm per Second per light year if I'm correct? which we then would have to split with 365 days times twenty four hours times sixty minutes (approximately that is:) gives us 2.4 cm per second split with 525 600 minutes (-> one light year) which will give us 4,56621004566210045662100456621e-6 cm per second per light minute if i understood this right? But then on the other hand it adds up, every second does. And as one second goes 31536000 in a year we would in one year see the distance grow 144 cm per one light minute (as seen over a distance of one Megaparsec, as the 'constant' working here?) and then also assuming that the factor really is 70.8 (km/sec)/Mpc.

Not sure if this makes sense or not.

Awh

So yeah, I can see the problem, as the distances we have inside our solar system counts only in light minutes at most.

But it sure seems weird to me. Considering that we get a number here that measures a distance growing, it seems then that we should be able to look at Planck size and then say how many Planck size this possible extremely generalized measurement would take too? :

))

Nah, don't take me to seriously here..

But still? one Planck size per ** per*** per*** etc etc

Hubble constant"The common unit of velocity used to measure the speed of a galaxy is km/sec, while the most common unit of for measuring the distance to nearby galaxies is called the Megaparsec (Mpc) which is equal to 3.26 million light years or 30,800,000,000,000,000,000 km! Thus the units of the Hubble constant are (km/sec)/Mpc. "

===

Sort of 'quasi logical' this one and up the walls too, but sort of fun even though it doesn't tell me a thing about why and where it is thought that our 'space' expands. It still seems that it should have something to do with Planck size to me? As that is the smallest measurement that makes sense to us??