A New Physics Would Explain What Looks Like an Irreconcilable Tension between the Values of Hubble Constants and Allows H0 to Be Calculated Theoretically Several Ways

Observing galaxies receding from each other, Hubble found the universe’s expansion in 1929. His law that gives the receding speed as a function of distance implies a factor called Hubble constant H0. We want to validate our theoretical value of H0 ≈ 72.09548580(32) km·s−1·MParsec−1 with a new cosmological model found in 2019. This model predicts what may look like two possible values of H0. According to this model, the correct equation of the apparent age of the universe gives ~ 14.14 billion years. In approximation, we get the well-known equation 1/H0 ≈ 13.56 billion years. When we force these ages to fit the 1/H0 formula, it gives two different Hubble constant values of ~69.2 and 72.1 km·s−1·MParsec−1. When we apply a theoretical correction factor of η ≈ 1.042516951 on the first value, both target the second one. We found 42 equations of H0 linking different physics constants. Some are used to measure H0 as a function of the average temperature T of the Cosmological Microwave Background and the universal gravitational constant G: H0 ≈ 72.06(90) km·s−1·MParsec−1 from T by Cobra probe & Equation (16) H0 ≈ 71.95(50) km·s−1·MParsec−1 from T by Partridge & Equation (16) H0 ≈ 72.086(36) km·s−1·MParsec−1 from G & Equation (34) H0 ≈ 72.105(36) km·s−1·MParsec−1 from G & Equations (74), (75), or (76). With 508 published values, H0 ≈ 72.0957 ± 0.33 km·s−1·MParsec−1 seems to be the “ideal” statistical result. It validates our model and our theoretical H0 value which are useful to find various interactions with the different constants. Our model also explains the ambiguity between the different universe’s age measurements and seems to unlock a tension between two H0 values.


Introduction
In astrophysics, the Hubble constant H 0 [1] is a parameter to analyze the universe. Nevertheless, it is also one of the lesser-known values.
In 1916, Einstein found the general relativity laws [2]. His equations expect that the universe is either expanding or in a Big Crunch. He could have been the first to predict the universe's expansion, but influenced by the popular idea, Einstein forced his model to be static with a cosmological constant Λ. In 1922, Friedmann showed from relativity that the universe expands at a calculable rate [3]. In 1927, Georges Lemaitre published independent research [4], giving what is now known as Hubble's law. In 1929, Hubble discovered the universe's expansion [1]. Equation (1) gives Hubble's law, with v being the receding speed in km·s −1 , D being the distance between the observed object and the observer, and H 0 being the Hubble constant. He measured about H 0 ≈ 500 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 .
His high value was due to a wrong calibration of the cepheids used to evaluate distances. Hubble's law was correct, but H 0 was remaining to be found with accuracy.
Physicists get H 0 based on far cosmic objects (Cepheids, supernovae, red giants, etc.) or local measurements (CMB, universal gravitational constant G, etc.). Including error margins of published values (see the software in Annex A), H 0 is between 19 to 174 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 . However, two values are often measured ~69.2 and ~72.1 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 . An irreconcilable tension between some H 0 values shows up [5]. Even with good accuracies, their error margins do not always overlap. It may let us think that only one of these values is right. No one considered it possible that both values may be in some way correct.
In 2019, we wrote an article [6] explaining what may look like two values for H 0 . We calculated the universe age, obtained a result of complex type, and an apparent age of the universe of ~14.4 billion years. The complete equation may be approximated by 1/H 0 , giving ~13.56 billion years. We notice that there is a difference of ~4.25% between the approximated and the non-approximated values.
Cosmologists use 1/H 0 to calculate the universe's age. Thus, if we could measure the apparent age of the universe with no approximation, we would conclude wrongly that the Hubble constant is ~4.25% lower than it should be.
We hypothesize that two values of H 0 are somehow obtained from an approximated and non-approximated equation of the apparent age of the universe. The confusion leads to a tension between two values when there should be only one.
We summarize our cosmological model [6] to get H 0 as a function of α, c, and r e . We found ways to measure H 0 locally by using the Cosmological Microwave Background (CMB) temperature T and by using the universal gravitational constant G [6] [7]. Based on our model, we found a theoretical equation to calculate H 0 from CODATA values (Committee of Data for Science and Technology) [8].
We want to validate this theoretical value of H 0 and highlight the tension between two measured values of H 0 . We list the results of the most recent measures of H 0 and build a graph showing someway the popularity of each H 0 value range.
We list 42 H 0 equations. Certain overcome the difficulties to do experimental measurements. We use one of them as a third measurement of H 0 . Our cosmological model shows that H 0 and the speed of light are not constant.

Physics Parameters
A compact form of notation is used to display tolerances (i.e., 2.734 (10)  10973731.568508 65 m R Einstein found that the presence of a massive object reduces the speed of light v L [11]. Schwarzschild calculated v L in a context of a weak gravitational field Φ using general relativity [12]. With |Φ| << c 2 around a spherical mass, Equation (3) gives v L as a function of c and a local refractive index n 0 (function of G [13]).
From an observer on Earth, c seems constant. However, the knowledge of a precise value of c dates only from 19 century [14]. In 1929, Edwin Hubble found that the universe is expanding [1]. As the apparent universe radius increases, the density of this latest must decrease over time, causing the refractive index of the vacuum to drop. As a result, it causes light to accelerate slowly.
In Equation (3), c is the local speed limit for light in a vacuum in our universe area. Admitting that light accelerates while the universe expands, it will tend towards another asymptotical speed limit k affected by a local refractive index n. For now, k is unknown. Let us build Equation (4), which is analog to Equation (3) for the universe [2]. Our universe parcel is at a distance r u from the universe's apparent mass center m u . The local speed of light c results from Equation (4).
Similarly to r u , the R u value is the apparent radius of curvature of the luminous universe [6] [15] (also called Hubble radius [16]). It is a function of c and H 0 . It is "apparent" since Equation (5) assumes c constant for a time equal to the universe's age. Now, its speed is c, but it is not constant in our model [6]. It was lower in the past and will increase while the universe expands. The H 0 value represents the expansion rate of the material universe in km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 [1]. It is the local derivative of the velocity of matter m v with respect to the element of distance dr.
Locally, at a distance r = r u , matter recedes radially from the center of mass of the universe at a rate β times slower than the speed of light c.
The apparent mass m u of the universe is given by Equation (7) [15] [17]: Our universe parcel is at a distance r u from the center of the mass m u . It travels at a speed v m relative to this latest. The ratio β is the asymptotical speed of light k in a vacuum (when R u tends towards infinity) influenced by a refractive Hubble measured H 0 from the global movement of galaxies at our location [1], at r u . They have their own movement. As the universe expands, they are generally moving away from each other. The derivative of the material universe speed v m according to the element of distance dr evaluated at r = r u is H 0 [6].
Solving Equations (4) to (7), and (9) gives Equations (10) to (14) [6]. The expending speed ratio β between the material and the luminous universes is geometric. It is also the ratio between r u and R u . It is unique to our model and essential to depict many constants and make links between the infinitely large and small in the Dirac hypothesis on large numbers [18] [19].

Our First Method to Measure H 0 as a Function of T (from CMB)
The accuracies of m u , r u , and R u widely depend on H 0 which could be between 19 and 174 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 (listed in the software in Annex A). Therefore, a better method of measuring H 0 is required to know m u , r u , and R u more accurately. We calculated the CMB temperature T as a function of H 0 and G [6]. This equation considers the universe as an ideal black body since it would absorb any incident radiation coming from outside, and it does not reflect or transmit any form of energy outside of the luminous universe (since it expands at the speed of light).
Let us isolate H 0 from Equation (15). The accuracy mainly depends on the CMB temperature T. Using T ≈ 2.736(17) K (from Cobra probe [20]), we get.

Dirac Hypothesis about Large Numbers
Dirac found (inaccurately) that large numbers come into a few orders of magnitude with same dimensions quantities ratios [18] [19]. All ratios come from N, via certain factors [22]. It represents the maximum number of photons in the universe. We get the highest number when the associated mass m ph of a photon is the smallest. This happens when the energy of the photons is at its lowest and with a wavelength of the same length as the circumference of the luminous universe (i.e., 2πR u ) [6]. Let us calculate m ph by equating its corpuscular and wave energies. 2 69 2.74 10 kg 2 2 We get N by dividing the apparent mass m u of the universe (Equation (7)) by the mass m ph associated with a photon of 2πR u wavelength (Equation (17)).
If we try to make a precise evaluation of N by using the Equations (6), (7), (16), and (17), we obtain Equation (19) which is dependent mainly on T. We evaluate the result by using the CODATA 2014 [8] and the average CMB temperature from Cobra probe [20]. Finally, we note that N is dimensionless as α. 6.31 15 10 4 b Assuming α used as a scale factor applied a few times, we postulate Equation (20). It seems impossible to get this equation from standard physics [2].
In the next formulas, Planck temperature is T p ≈ 1.42 × 10 32 K. This is the highest temperature reached at the Big Bang. It happens when we put the entire mass m u in a point-like pellet of Planck length radius L p . Planck charge is given by q p ≈ 1.88 × 10 −18 C. "Large" numbers are obtained with N exponent a fraction, such as N 1/2 , N 1/3 , N 1/4 , … N 1/57 , etc. We get these in different ways by using various parameters of the universe [2]. They are always unitless. Some come from Dirac's hypothesis on large numbers [18] [19]. Some links will be used later [6].
In a non-published document [22], we show over 150 links that give N with various parameters. The universe is well-linked between the infinitely large and the infinitely small. Almost everything changes while the universe is expanding.

Precise Calculation of H 0
Unlike Equation (16), we look for an equation that does not use G and T to get H 0 since they do not have good accuracies. Usually, G intervenes in the calculations of gravitational force and energy. Without any details (see [6] [7]), let us calculate the electrical energy E e between two electrons separated by a space equal to the classical electron radius r e . The electrical energy E e is not linked to the distance since we get If these experiments are done at the luminous universe periphery, we get an electrical energy e e E E ′ = and a gravita- The ratio between e E′ and g E′ gives Equation (29).
As in Equation (20), we realize that the fine-structure constant α plays a role in determining orders of magnitude. By adjusting the exponent of the fine-structure constant α, we obtain a result identical to Equation (29).
Equations (29) and (30) We associate the wave energy with the energy of the electron mass m e .

Our Second Method to Measure H 0 as a Function of G
We want to find a second way to measure H 0 as a function of G. We must use accurate parameters, such as α and the characteristics of the electron (m e and r e ). We look for an equation dependent on G without any rational exponent that reduces the sensitivity. We can use Equations (31) and (33). From each of them, we isolate r e , and we make both equal to get H 0 . Since G is the least precise value, Equation (34) This result is about 25 times more precise than Equation (16) that uses the average CMB temperature T. We included this result in our software in Annex A.

Hubble Constant versus the Age of the Universe
We calculate the universe's age with our cosmological model to understand what seems to be two potential values of H 0 . We measure H 0 by observing cosmological objects. Universe's age Δt u is of complex type and results from the integral of the inverse of the expanding speed of the material universe v m with the element of distance dr evaluated between the universe's center of mass (at r = 0) and the apparent material universe radius of curvature at our location r u .
The Δt hu is the time elapsed between the horizon (r = r h ) and here (r = r u ): The Δt 0h is the elapsed time between r = 0 and the horizon r = r h : At the universe horizon r = r h , the speed of light is zero. We cannot see beyond the horizon. The delay Δt hu is the time elapsed between the horizon h and our actual position r u in the universe. The delay Δt 0h is the time elapsed between the center of mass of the universe and the horizon r h (given by Equation (38)). Performing the integral calculation of Equation (35), we get Equation (39).
We can decompose the age of the universe Δt u into two parts, Δt hu and Δt 0h .
The value Δt hu represents the time elapsed between r = r h (at the horizon) and our actual position r = r u in the universe. The value Δt 0h gives the time elapsed between r = 0 (at the Big Bang) and r = r h (at the horizon).
The imaginary time Δt 0h means that it elapses independently of our time. We cannot see an event between r = 0 and r = r h , and an observer located between r = 0 and r h could not see us. The Δt hu equation is: The precise equation for Δt 0h is: The modulus of the complex age Δt u gives the universe's apparent age T u . 14.14 10 years As the square root over the accolade is approximatively equal to 1, we get: The value of the correction factor between Equations (43) and (45) is η.
This η explains why scientists currently measure two values of H 0 . Scientists can only size the apparent age of the universe with different techniques. They cannot measure the real part and the imaginary part of the universe's age.
There is no "local" or "far" value of H 0 . There is only one H 0 . Some techniques give H 0 directly, and others need a correction factor. There is no need for any correction factor when H 0 is calculated from Equation (33), measured with the CMB temperature with Equation (16), or with the universal gravitational constant G with Equation (34). Other techniques may get similar results than Equation (43), and if we impose that value to fit with Equation (45) However, Equation (45) gives the actual H 0 value: If scientists could measure the real part of the universe's age and associate this value with 1/H 0 , they would obtain the following value.
If scientists could measure the imaginary part somehow, the association of this value with 1/H 0 (like in Equation (45)) would give the following H 0 value.
with different types of experiments to measure the apparent age of the universe, scientists usually get either ~H 0 ≈ 69.2 or ~72.1 km·s −1 ·Mparsec −1 . We assume that all calibration factors are used. New techniques could require other unknown corrective factors that have nothing to do with the related phenomenon.
The articles rarely give enough details to check if the process used needs η. Scientists must verify if the η factor is required for their approach.

Other Experimental Measurements of Hubble Constant H 0
In 1929, Hubble made the first observational-based measurements with cepheids and got H 0 ≈ 500 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 [1]. Sadly, even with a correct principle, his value is higher than the typical value due to errors in distance calibrations.
Let us validate our theoretical H 0 with an adequate interpretation of 508 measurements found on the Internet. The ends of their tolerance ranges give 1016 values. To find H 0 that has the highest probability to be measured, we compile the number of crossings with the tolerance ranges for each value of H 0 . It generates a curve with two tips (Figure 1). The higher it is, the greater the chances are that this value of H 0 may be part of many tolerance ranges among the collected data.
A simple statistical phenomenon may be described with a Gaussian function. For fitting a wavy curve, it is necessary to make the sum of many Gaussians. A simpler model with fewer degrees of liberty must always be privileged.
A curve fit is done by summing different Gaussians (shown in Figure 2). A better gap fitting reduces the risk of finding other results. Thus, we gave a heavier weight (×10) to all data located between 69.2 and 72.1 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 (from our theory). We tried with and without this approach, and it gives about the same result. As it improves the gap fitting, we kept this approach. Journal of Modern Physics  Each tip in Figure 1 is approximated in Figure 2 with two positive Gaussians. We force these curves to be around two means, even though there are four positive curves. It removes two degrees of liberty. We must add a negative Gaussian to model the gap between the two mean values. We must elaborate on this negative Gaussian. Our theory predicts "two close values" of H 0 . On the curve, a deep gap shows up. It is impossible to get such a gap by only adding positives Gaussians which give two little bumps without any gap. To get a real gap, we must add a negative Gaussian. Let us see in Figure 3 what would look like a curve fit without any negative Gaussian. Since the tips are close, they mix up to build only one tip.
The Gaussian sum in Figure 3 peaks around H 0 ≈ 71.11 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 . The result is not close to our theoretical H 0 ≈ 72.09548580 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 (Equation (33)), but it is about what is found if statistics were used through the whole data set, thinking they should see only one tip. Moreover, Jang & Lee showed a similar value of H 0 ≈ 71.17 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 (listed in our software in Annex A) that supposedly reduces the tension between the values obtained by cepheids (calibrated on SNe Ia) and CMB.
It is known that there is currently a tension between two groups [5]. A significant gap appears between the two tips. The only way to create such a gap is to Journal of Modern Physics withdraw values nearby a specific value. It would then create a negative Gaussian, such as in Figure 2. It is delicate to debate why some values may have been withdrawn. It could be intentional or not. In the past, it was difficult to see a difference between these groups. Now, the tolerances are small enough to clearly see two groups. With recent growing tensions between these two clans, some may be inclined to shrink or shift some tolerance ranges when it overlaps with neighbor values.
In Figure 4, we apply η to the curves around H 0 ≈ 69.882 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 . Then, all curves stand around H 0 ≈ 72.36 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 . Then, with the curves of Figure 4, we build the curve in Figure 5. Figure 6 is a zoom of its tip.
We want to know the precise value of H 0 for which the derivative of the Gaussian summation is 0. It corresponds to the highest probability of getting the true H 0 value. Unfortunately, the derivative of a Gaussian summation is not an easy equation to get in a software. We rather use a numerical technic to get it. In Figure 6, we show a zoom of the quadratic curve fit around the tip value. Using the equation, we take the derivative and find its maximum. The quadratic equation has the following form: This result is well centered on our theoretical value within 3 parts per million. Our approach considers that both clans are someway right. Indeed, their different approaches and results also highlight a new phenomenon. It gives credit to our theory of the universe's complex age that predicts a few possible fake H 0 values.
We have 508 data. Each has a tolerance range (that may be symmetrical or not) that generates two H 0 values. Therefore, there are a total of i max = 1016 data at the end. The following equation depicts the statistical error e t : We mention that 16 H 0 values in our software in Annex A come from statistics. We kept them since some are mixed up with new valuable data information. So, we modify Equation (53) to remove them to reduce their impact on the total e t error. We use the following equation where n = 2 × 16 = 32 (each data generates two H 0 values) is the number of elements to exclude from our sample. The total e t error reduces with the square root of the number of elements included in our sample.
In Annex A, we supply the software used to get this result. All the main steps enumerated in this article are clearly shown. The software uses starting values (found via Excel) to fit the original curve with 5 Gaussian curves (#0 to #4 to use the same numbers as the software). Each Gaussian uses three parameters: μ is the mean value, σ represents the variance, and m is a multiplication factor.
Here are the values for the 5 Gaussian curves used to fit the original curve: For Gaussians #1 and #2, we force the software to use the same mean value. We do the same thing for Gaussians #3 and #4. We also note that the multiplication factor m of Gaussian #0 is negative. With these values, we stopped iterating when the sum of squares of errors was lower than 22000. We see in Figure 1 that the obtained approximated curve fits well the original curve. In our software (Annex A), the iterations start with values close to what they should be.
The specificity of our approach is to say that the two clans are someway right. However, we must apply a correction factor to one of them. Indirectly, it gives credit to a complex universe age that predicts a few possible fake values of H 0 .
After reading this article, scientists should continue their work as they were doing, without applying any correction factor to their raw data. The correction factor should only be used on the final Gaussian curve to analyze data.

A Reminder of Different Useful Identities
To avoid repeating everything unnecessarily, we recall different identities that will be used later to determine H 0 . Planck units are commonly defined as fol- The fine-structure constant α is linked to Rydberg constant R ∞ and the electron mass m e by the following equation: The speed of light c is given as a function of μ 0 and ε 0 .
Associating the mass-energy of a Planck particle with its wave energy and then, using Equations (31), (32), (64), and (62), we get Planck charge q p defined several ways and as a function of c, G, and h like the other Planck units.
The electron's charge is determined from the mass of the electron m e , the classical electron radius r e , and the vacuum permeability μ 0 .
Let us calculate the precise value of the average temperature T of the CMB. We first make equal Equations (16) and (33). Then, we replace G by Equation (31), and we get rid of Planck constant h by its value from Equation (32).
This CMB temperature is like Kimura with 2.737 K [23].

Different Equations to Calculate H 0
For an academic purpose and to show the interdependence of H 0 with the other "constants", we will enumerate equations using various universe parameters.
Some overcome the inherent difficulties in measuring H 0 and show a rounda-C. Mercier bout way of obtaining an accurate value of it. We also find some others which depend on interesting values, or more precise ones. Using the constants c, k b , T, m e , r e , h, G, μ 0 , ε 0 , m u , R u , R ∞ , q e , q p , t p , l p , T p , m p , m ph , and β , we find many equations.
The H 0 parameter is not constant since 1/H 0 represents an approximation of the apparent universe's age, and H 0 get smaller over time. Since the universe is old, H 0 changes slowly. If the constancy of all the universe's parameters is maintained as it is currently done in metrology, the universe's age and H 0 will seem constant.
Results of 508 different experiences reduce the error by 508 1/2 ≈ 22.5. It may look like a significant number, but it is nothing besides what has been done to measure the electron characteristics accurately. Particle accelerators use millions of electrons at each experiment, and they repeat these many times to find something new. Computers analyze the collisions' results to make the electron's characteristics more and more accurate. It is why there is no manner to get better results than that of Equation (33), as it is based on well-known characteristics of the electron. We will see further many other equations that give precise results.
With Equations (63) and (72), we get the most accurate equation.
Using Equation (63) in Equation (74), we get Equation (75). This equation is also a good candidate for measuring H 0 as a function of G.
This equation is another good candidate for measuring H 0 as a function of G.
The measure still gives the same result as Equation (74). We will enumerate other equations without making all the rather fastidious demonstrations. However, all these may be found from previous equations.
3 55   This document gives 42 equations of H 0 as a function of various universe parameters. Since H 0 may be defined using different parameters, we suggest that some of the most critical universe parameters are well linked, as much in the infinitely small as in the infinitely large, and H 0 is part of these.

Why Is H 0 Not Really a Constant?
We want to explain why Hubble parameter H 0 cannot be constant over time. As simple as it is, the reverse of Hubble parameter H 0 is related to the apparent age of the universe (see Equation (45)). Consequently, the H 0 parameter is changing over time. It is, therefore, by abuse of language that we call H 0 the Hubble "constant". To be more precise, we should say the Hubble "parameter".
When H 0 is expressed in km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 , the ninth digit after the dot changes every year. It goes completely unnoticed. More than that, even if we could achieve this precision in our measurements of H 0 , it would still go unnoticed since we forced c to be constant in 1983. In metrology, scientists choose the speed of light as a standard. Even though c changes every year, if we force it to be constant, we willfully readjust all other constants and units (distance, time, and mass) as a function of c to keep it constant. Then, H 0 looks constant as other parameters.
With 508 data (from [24] to [310] shown in our software in Annex A), a graph showing the actual tension [5] between two values is shown. We decomposed the curve into Gaussians. A negative one is required to explain the large gap between the two H 0 values, and it is due to withdrawn values. So, we restored them by removing that curve. Then, we applied a η ≈ 1.042516951 correction factor (from our theory) to the curves located at ~H 0 ≈ 69.2 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 .
Our theory highlights a misunderstanding of the link between 1/H 0 and the universe's apparent age. With the proper correction factor applied, we get a statistical value of H 0 ≈ 72.0957 ± 0.33 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 , which is close to our theoretical value. Our discovery of the η factor may help to reduce the tension between scientists. Someway we show that even if two H 0 values seem to be commonly found with various techniques, both are accurate if a proper correction factor is used.
With a new cosmological model, we get an apparent age of the universe of about 14.14 billion years. The exact formula is approximated from an elaborate integral result by the well-known 1/H 0 equation that gives 13.56 billion years. Different techniques may lead to either value. It depends if it is an attempt to measure the universe's age locally or far away. There is no "local" or "distant" value of H 0 , as some may pretend [46] [47]. Sticking their measurement of the apparent age of the universe to 1/H 0 , most cosmologists get results that stand around 69.2 or 72.1 km·s −1 ·MParsec −1 . Our hypothesis may explain the actual tension [5] relative to these two values. However, there is only one true H 0 value, and the other one is just misinterpreted as being the Hubble constant without quite being so.
Even if many theoretical equations of H 0 are shown in this article, we highlight that we also found a few interesting ways to measure the H 0 accurately using the CMB temperature T and the value of the universal gravitational constant G from CODATA 2014. These results confirm our theoretical value.
H 0 ≈ 72.06 (90)  For an academic purpose, we enumerated 42 equations of H 0 using different parameters. These equations showed that H 0 is intricated with all other "constants". For metrology purposes, the speed of light in a vacuum is forced to be constant to be an unchanging standard. If this situation is considered valid in a metrology context, H 0 should also be considered constant and become part of the CODATA. However, if 1/H 0 represents an approximation of the universe's age, it would also make sense to say that H 0 is changing over time.
Einstein's and Schwarzschild's equations show that massive objects such as the universe influence the speed of light. As the universe expands, its density diminishes, and the local speed of light increases over time.
The fine-structure constant α is unitless and may be described as a ratio where the variation rate at the numerator counterbalances the variation rate at the denominator. Apart from α and β , all "constants" used to describe H 0 in our equations somehow emanate from fundamental units such as the meter, the second, and the kilogram. These units are now defined by the speed of light. As H 0 describes the universe's age and depends on many unit-dependent "constants" based on c, we should consider c and all universe's unit-dependent parameters as changing over time. Forcing c to be constant is necessary for metrology purposes, but it is not in the interest of physicists for explaining phenomena. An accurate value of H 0 has a great interest in deepening our understanding of the universe.

Conflicts of Interest
The author claims that he has no conflict of interest in connection with the publication of this article. Journal of Modern Physics Annex A (C++ Software) // This software finds "the best" experimental value of H0 with a set of 508 data //Compiled on Dev-C++ 5.11 available for free at: // https://sourceforge.net/projects/orwelldevcpp/ #include<stdio.h> #include<stdbool.h> #include<math.h> #define printf __mingw_printf #define nbH0 508 //Number of measurements of H0 analyzed #define Pi 3.141592654 //Definition of Pi double Mean [5],Sigma [5],Multiplier [5];