I have something new on this that may take us off in another direction. So I have started a new thread. There is at least one peculiarity about it that I cannot explain from existing knowledge. There may be more.
First a summary of existing and alternative concepts so far:

There is a fundamental wavelength to the universe being the length of the observable universe 1.265*10²⁶m.
There is therefore a fundamental frequency of c/1.265*10²⁶m = 2.37*10^-18Hz (s)^-1 or *2Pi to give 1.49*10^-17s^-1.
The Red Shift Factor = 1/1.265*10²⁶m = 7.9*10^-27m^-1
The fundamental quantum of energy = hc/1.265*10²⁶m = 1.57*10^-51J
The Red Shift Factor is also dw/w² = - dE/hc = 7.9*10^-27m^-1 where dE = 1.57*10^-51J
Universal time =1/2.37*10^-18Hz (s^-1) =4.22*10^-17s

Now originally, I thought about dividing by 10 to find patterns, but it occurred to me that that was not the right way to go about it. If a fundamental wave or frequency exists, then they probably have harmonics. So, I began to divide the fundamental wave by 2. This is exceedingly tedious on a calculator but excel can divided it by 2 and produce a list almost immediately. You can also get the harmonics of the frequencies by multiplying by 2. You then have a couple of hundred numbers to look at which is rather daunting. However, here is the kicker. On the wavelength twelfth harmonic, the wavelength is exactly (to the third decimal place) One Megaparsec. Now that has to be one of the biggest cosmic coincidences since the sun & moon where given the same diameter on the sky. Can anyone think of a logical explanation for that?
I can think of non-logical explanation. That is it offers a sort of explanation for quantised galaxy red shifts. If my memory is correct one Mpc (apparent recession rate of 73ms^-1Mpc^-1). This is the first major qunatisation zone.The others are multiples. There are smaller ones at regular sub units. Therefore the galaxies would tend to have red shifts around the nodes of the twelfth harmonic with others around the nodes of the next harmonic. What is going on?
There may be other numbers of significance or the amplitudes which for the non-mathematical is found by multiplying a node value by 3/2.

Guess the film.

Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning,
On an ever spinning wheel
As the images unwind
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind

We still have

There is a fundamental wavelength to the universe being the length of the observable universe 1.265*1026m.

Where does this come from? Feed H into a relation, twiz it around a bit,  and it will come out at the end.
How many times do you have to divide by two to get a light year (if not why not), metre, foot, inch, cubit, yard, cm, fathom, chain, furlong, perch....
See what i mean, check the rest - and I mean everything.
But whatever keeps you happy.
Cheers,
lyndon

Yes I agree there are circular arguements. Yet there is really only one common parameter, the size of the observable universe.

I disagree with the argument of halving to get a light year. I am not talking about getting close. This appears to be exact. Too exact to be a coincidence. Unless I have made an arithmetical mistake 1.265*10²⁶m divided by 64 twice. Isn't that binary? Like a computer uses?

Have you stopped asking questions? You sound like you are ready to revert back to the BB model. :-)

Roy

But it can't be 'exact' because your size of observable universe' is based on H which is not exact.
Firstly, it is only to two sig fgs (73?) so any quantity derived from this can only have two sig figs. one cannot then claim to get the Mpc to 3dp or four sig figs when it is based on a 2sf number.
Secondly, the Hubble constant is 73+/- 8 if I remember correctly so have you factored in the 9% uncertainty when you claim to get one Mpc 'exactly'?
I haven't given up on non Bb models at all, just this one for the moment to be honest - until I see an algebraic path from start to finish. And then put some numbers in to show it agrees with observation.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Or,
What is special about the parsec?

The parsec is defined as the length of the adjacent side of an imaginary right triangle in space. The two dimensions that this triangle is based on are the angle (which is defined as 1 arcsecond), and the opposite side (which is defined as 1 Astronomical Unit, which is the distance from the Earth to the sun). Using these two measurements, along with the rules of trigonometry, the length of the adjacent side (the parsec) can be found.

To quote wicki.
So if there is some link between the harmonic of the size of the visible universe and the Mpc, then there must be a link between the universe, the radius of the Earth's orbit and an arc second. The arc second is based upon 360degrees which is anybodies guess as to where that came from. Germany in the early 1940's allegedly wanted 100 degrees to the right angle so were would you be then?
Some say it is based on 365 days in the year and the Babylonians? got it wrong. So I don't see it as anything other than a coincidence.
If you would like a constructive comment why not look at the spacing in the Universe – the way galaxies have a spacing of about 40 per unit redshift could that be one of your harmonics?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106498  is an early paper on it.
Its on my website under CMB, was at the CCC2 and John Hartnell did a paper on it.

To me a relation to an actual distance like that (rather than one set by definition) would be more impressive.
Why not give that and the other quantized redshifts a go?
Just a constructive thought.
Lyndon

Ah! I think way may be a bit at cross purposes. The definition of a Megaparsec and the size of the observable universe do come from totally unrelated sources. What I am saying is that it is so close to make you wonder if there is not an underlieing reason for it. I know there is uncertainty in Ho on which the size of the observable universe is based. Still you can always do thing in reverse and start with an exact megaparsec. One Mpc = 3.085678*10²²m*64*64= =1.264*10²⁶m the size of the obervable universe.

To me a relation to an actual distance like that (rather than one set by definition) would be more impressive.
Why not give that and the other quantized redshifts a go?
Just a constructive thought.

Its in this direction that my thoughts are going with this. The quantised redshifts appear to follow a regular sine curve of some sort. The fact that the size of the observable universe just happens to be an integer number of Megaparsecs is just another piece in the puzzle.

Ah! I think way may be a bit at cross purposes. The definition of a Megaparsec and the size of the observable universe do come fro
m totally unrelated sources. What I am saying is that it is so close to make you wonder if there is not an underlieing reason for it.

Are you invoking God now?

Are you invoking God now?

No. I don't know if I have false memory syndrome, but I had it in the back of my mind that when the first quantised redshifts came to light that they were at 73km s^-1Mpc^-1 and integer multiples thereof, with some at half values in between. 73km s^-1 is the rate of recession at exacly one Mpc away. If it were so, it would smack of a gigantic standing wave and maybe harmonics of that wave. I need more time to look back at some sets of results.

Tift and Guthrie are the workers.
They suggested a doppler velocity of 72km/s as a quantised value - but not intervals of 2,3 .. as you say, but half, third and even a sixth of this.
Try "Redshift "by S. Clark. Good Book.
Can you find 1/6 of one Mpc in your harmonics?

They suggested a doppler velocity of 72km/s as a quantised value - but not intervals of 2,3 .. as you say, but half, third and even a sixth of this.
Try "Redshift "by S. Clark. Good Book.
Can you find 1/6 of one Mpc in your harmonics?

Thanks. I've ordered the book. First let me correct something I said earlier. I got my harmonics mixed up with my octaves. The megaparsec is on the 12th octave (don't know what the em equivalent is) i.e. the 12th halving of the fundamental.
Right, forget going out to the edge of the observable universe for now and lets just consider one megaparsec and we fit one fundamental wave into it wave into it. That's half a wavelength for any none physicists following this. So we have a node here and one Mpc away. The next harmonic would be one full wavelength with a node at the half point. The next harmonic fits three loops in, then four, five & six. From memory I think that the even ones are stronger than the odd ones. However, as the numbers go up the whole thing would become blurred when dealing with discrete quantities like galaxies. It looks like a giant sinewave + superposition of harmonics.
Now taking it out beyond one parsec, from what I have just been reading, the next major quantization is around 146km s^-1 which is 2Mpc away and so on. Also, based on what we have done earlier the sinewave would also have to follow the exponential curve as well out at enormous distances. Its enigmatic and worthy of further investigation.

Well yes, but didn't Tift get a quantisation at 2.7 km/s? This is about 1/25 th of a megaparsec. So if you set 'one loop' at a Mpc how do you then get 1/25 th of a loop?

Also, I think you were right the first time!
One 'loop' should be the size of the universe, lambda = 2D say where D is size of universe in your theory. The other harmonics would be lamda = (2/2)D, Lambda =  (2/3)D, lambda = (2/4)D, lambda = (2/5)D etc

Or 1/25th is just the first node of 25 loops within the Mpc. As you move out it gets more complicated. Overlaps etc. + blurring of the effects as the node of one harmonic is close to the node of another. The thing is, is that they can't really be in those positions or we would be the centre of the universe. It would have to be some effect that em waves possess that is distance travelled dependent. In the analogy with sound it would be like a longitudinal wave but not really be one if you see what I mean. There are no real analogies that I can think of at the moment.

Well, what about Dirac's 'coincidence'?
The ratio of the size of the observable universe to the size of an atom is comparable with the ratio of the electrical (or nuclear) and gravitational forces between elementary particles. There is no explanation for this well known coincidence within conventional physics, but Dirac (1937, 1938) has conjectured that …..

http://www.columbia.edu/~ah297/unesa/universe/universe-chapter5.html

or

For instance, there's the famous Eddington Dirac number, which is 10[40] (10 to the 40). It's the ratio between the size of the universe and the classical size of the electron, and also the ratio between the electromagnetic force of, say, the hydrogen atom, and the gravitational force on the hydrogen atom. Dirac went down the garden path to try to make a theory in which this large number had to be what it was.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd2/lloyd2_print.html

Thanks. They will take a bit of assimilating. I have had a cursory look. The main trouble with writings on this subject is that they operate within a big bang framework as do both writers here. We are trying to find an explanation of phenomena existing outside this framework. However, we'll keep plugging away.

But coincidences built on physical things will always win over coincidences built on definitions. Drop the Mpc and look at quantised redshifts. size of elementary particles etc. Just a thought.