Inconsistency between Velocity vs Redshift and Scale Factor vs Time plots

[Nicram]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

I'm not the one down voting. I rarely if ever do so

In that case I'm sorry, but only for this accusation. Not reading what I gave you, what was a very precise strike at the fundamentals of the most important integral in cosmology - that's unforgivable.

I'm using this reply to share something regarding downvotes anyway: https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/961/

Still, the question remains the same @Mordred did you figure out a way to fix the inconsistency, or will I get your usual menu again?

Edited July 19 by Nicram

[Mordred]

WHT don't you describe what that inconsistency is. As the inconsistency is your claim and not mine.

Secondly I never down vote that's another reader of the thread.

Edited July 19 by Mordred

[Nicram]

@Mordred if you don't cross out redshift values as I did and replace them with the ones I did https://i.sstatic.net/EDJB3rCZ.png
You will have a striking inconsistency in term of the redshift and the scale factor values https://i.sstatic.net/7JVt6ZeK.png
You know their relation. Values on the plots clearly contradict this relation.

[Mordred]

As mentioned numerous tines those details need to be included here for discussion. I was being polite by even looking at your link 

I don't expect others to do so nor should I have to jump links to keep track of a conversation.

[Nicram]

@Mordred Polite you say. In your politeness, you glanced condescendingly and threw your equations avalanche at me.

My dear downvoters, why don't you join the discussion and tell something on topic?

Edited July 19 by Nicram

[Mordred]

I described the details needed to properly use the FLRW metric. If you don't take into account the differences in the equations of state and the different rates they evolve as expansion occurs you will get the wrong answers.

You also will also get the wrong answers if you mix observer types and different metrics or ignore the distinctions between Minkoskii Euclidean and the FLRW metric

 

Edited July 19 by Mordred

[Nicram]

@Mordred You will also get the wrong answers, if you place yourself at the wrong point on both plots and assume proportionality of values, that are inversely proportional. I would say that's just a tiny bit more fundamental.

My dear downvoters, why don't you join the discussion and tell something on topic?

Edited July 19 by Nicram

[Mordred]

Why are you mixing plots between Minkowskii to the FLRW metric to begin with ? That is simply wrong

Perhaps you should look directly at why the the two are distinctive from one another 

If you like I will post the Christoffel symbols for each perhaps that will help

Edited July 19 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Nicram said:

In your politeness, you glanced condescendingly and threw your equations avalanche at me.

My dear downvoters, why don't you join the discussion and tell something on topic?

!

Moderator Note

I can tell you that the second sentence isn't going to happen mostly because of the first sentence. You're approaching this as if it were personal rather than science. Put the sneer away and discuss this civilly.

 

[Nicram]

23 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Why are you mixing plots between Minkowskii to the FLRW metric to begin with ? That is simply wrong

Perhaps you should look directly at why the the two are distinctive from one another 

If you like I will post the Christoffel symbols for each perhaps that will help

I hope this time you will open it and read it. They were already mixed on the Velocity vs Redshift plot. The reason is that our current intergalactic space is flat or close to flat, and you have no right to integrate FLWR metric to calculate the distance. In this image I'm extensively explaining why.

Christoffel symbols - Christ Awful Symbols - Love them.

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

I can tell you that the second sentence isn't going to happen mostly because of the first sentence. You're approaching this as if it were personal rather than science. Put the sneer away and discuss this civilly.

 

Do you seriously think that their downvoting without giving a reason is fair to me?

Edited July 19 by Nicram

[swansont]

53 minutes ago, Nicram said:

Do you seriously think that their downvoting without giving a reason is fair to me?

Everyone is subject to the same dynamic, do yes, it’s fair.

Perhaps they were chastising you for primarily posting links and pictures, while Mordred is taking the time to post actual material, including a lot of math. So maybe it’s your sense of entitlement, that you don’t have to put in the same effort, even though you own the burden of proof here. Or maybe it’s something else.

 

[Nicram]

@swansont Everyone is subject to the same dynamic, do yes, it’s fair. 

It means that this dynamics is equally unfair to everyone.

while Mordred is taking the time to post actual material, including a lot of math.

Would you really try to teach someone the principles like him, with the avalanche of not so simple maths? Would you throw this avalanche after allegedly knowing the problem, that is introduced, or would you really try to understand the problem, before you give your explanation?

including a lot of math.

Have you heard about Copy Paste?

sense of entitlement, that you don’t have to put in the same effort

I didn't have my content in this forum's format to do the same. I admit, that I didn't respect your rules. I'm sorry for that.

even though you own the burden of proof here

Would you admit that proof in a different format is not less valid?

@Mordred I apologised you for this accusation. I apologise again.

[Mordred]

Would you prefer I provided simply provide  the end result equations without any other detail relating to their mathematical proof ?

 It would do you absolutely no good if I simply posted say the last equation using the Natural logarithmic functions without describing mathematically how it works vis the equations of state would it ?

It would do no good to simply provide the equations of state and not include the relations to the critical density formula.

Nor would it do any good to simply state that the scale factor, Hubble parameter varies over time and are not constant so any attempt to use the value today to calculate z=1100 will get the wrong answer. Hence I provided the equations showing why and how that occurs instead of just stating such and expecting you to automatically take my word for it.

For the reasons I provided the Hogg paper as it's directly related for precisely the same reasons.

Hence I am being thorough and providing  the necessary equations and relations to understand the key distinctions between the Minkowskii metric and the FLRW metric. (That distinction directly relates to the influence upon the FLRW metric due to the acceleration equation over the time period from now to the CMB. )

The cross over for the matter dominant era to the Lambda dominant era occurs after the CMB so there is also a shift in expansions rates due to that crossover.

 

Edited July 19 by Mordred

[Nicram]

@Mordred What good did it do in context of the integral, that just needs FLRW metric, that is the trivial general metric with the inserted scale factor from Friedmann equations? What good did it do to explain all the details of parametric form of scale factor?

[Mordred]

How will that integral work if you do not include how the scale factor and the goemetry changes over time? 

It won't period  in order for the integral to work you must include and account for all time dependent variations.

That has been precisely what I have been trying to get through to you but you keep missing that very point.

Edited July 19 by Mordred

[Nicram]

@Mordred it's sufficient to know that it changes over time, that it grows, and where are its starting and ending points

[Mordred]

Great mathematically include it in your graphs by simply knowing it but not knowing how to incorporate it into your the graphs.

Not going to work you must know how to include those variations mathematically 

[Nicram]

@Mordred I didn't need to plot the scale's factor function myself, so I didn't need these details.

@Mordred am I wrong, or have you still not opened my last picture?

Edited July 19 by Nicram

[Mordred]

Still waiting for it but I already identified where your error is and you just admitted you did not account for the evolution of the scale factor. You didn't build the first top graph I already knew that however I know how that graph was derived and the originator used the details I mentioned but just on the GR line though as per the comment on the paper provided  (Lineweaver and Davies)

The equations specifically describing the difference between SR and what they termed the GR line is described at the beginning of the article 

To quote

"conversion from cosmological redshift to recession velocity is different from the conversion from an SR Doppler shift to peculiar velocity"

 

[Nicram]

@Mordred So you are saying that you are still waiting to open my picture... Listen, If I had to plot this function, I would need explicit form of a(t), I would need to know its equation. I don't care about its exact equation, because my only job is to show, why you can't integrate its inverse no matter what the exact equation is. I've told you this reason 2 or 3 times already and the full blown explanation is written in the provided picture.

Listen. If scale factor represents or is equal to the average distance between the galaxies, then it increases altogether with the redshift, but it also must be equal to the inverse of the redshift at each point on its curve. This is contradiction, because the redshift cannot increase with the scale factor and decrease at the same time as its reciprocal (inverse). What is incomprehensible about it? It's plain wrong.

This quote is wrong because of the given contradiction, because the integral is wrong and whole the cosmology with it.

you just admitted you did not account for the evolution of the scale factor - If the author of the plot accounted for it and I used his plot, is the plot wrong, because I'm not the author?

Edited July 19 by Nicram

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Nicram said:

Have you heard about Copy Paste?

At least you can quote it in a response. A screenshot doesn’t permit this, and is a tactic of people spamming their ideas, rather than engaging in sincere discussion. 

“Look at this stuff I posted elsewhere!” just isn’t taken that seriously. You can whine all you want about being treated unfairly, but it’s mostly noise to many of us.

[Nicram]

@swansont If I can whine all I want, then I'll keep whining. Don't bother, mister moderator.

I almost forgot about the link to astronomy stack exchange at the beginning. To sum up: two pictures and one link. 

Edited July 19 by Nicram

[Mordred]

Ok I'm done with attitude in a post you have my answer it's your choice to understand the answer or ignore it.

 The lineweaver paper your comparing to uses factors you choose to ignore. I provided the relations of those factors to the redshift relation Z. You cannot inverse the Doppler shift relation including the relativistic Doppler and expect to get the same results as the Cosmological redshift because the Cosmological redshift relation  involves factor not included in relativistic Doppler the very terms you choose to ignore.

I'm tired of repeating myself as well

 Ever stop to wonder why your receiving  negative rep points ? 

For the record the Moderator you just talked back to also has a PhD in physics 

Edited July 19 by Mordred

[Nicram]

@Mordred Forget for a second about the Doppler and read it carefully.

If scale factor represents or is equal to the average distance between the galaxies, then it increases altogether with the redshift, but it also must be equal to the inverse of the redshift at each point on its curve. This is contradiction, because the redshift cannot increase with the scale factor and decrease at the same time as its reciprocal (inverse). What is incomprehensible about it? It's plain wrong.

Then I feel sorry for you both with these degrees.

[Mordred]

 

37 minutes ago, Nicram said:

@Mordred Forget for a second about the Doppler and read it carefully.

If scale factor represents or is equal to the average distance between the galaxies, then it increases altogether with the redshift, but it also must be equal to the inverse of the redshift at each point on its curve. This is contradiction, because the redshift cannot increase with the scale factor and decrease at the same time as its reciprocal (inverse). What is incomprehensible about it? It's plain wrong.

Then I feel sorry for you both with these degrees.

would you like me to prove you wrong under full blown GR treatment ?

I can readily provide the Full GR treatment for each case if you like. of course that will barrage you with a large list of equations as I would also have to include the mathematical proof under 4 momentum along the null geodesics involved.

Edited July 19 by Mordred