Mordred Posted July 20 Posted July 20 (edited) no only a_0 will be one forever that's the person doing the observing. Just like a drafting scale ruler a 1 to 1 scale is always 1. its no different the length or scale on top is either greater, lesser of equal to the scale on bottom denominator. Edited July 20 by Mordred
iNow Posted July 20 Posted July 20 7 hours ago, Mordred said: That has been precisely what I have been trying to get through to you but you keep missing that very point. Quite likely on purpose, much like trolls do
Mordred Posted July 20 Posted July 20 (edited) 3 minutes ago, iNow said: Quite likely on purpose, much like trolls do Or possibly in this case an honest misunderstanding. Particularly if one legitimately didn't know how the scale factor works Edited July 20 by Mordred 1
Nicram Posted July 20 Author Posted July 20 (edited) @Mordred I ask you will a/a0 be ever > 1. You tell me, that only a0 will be one forever. Will a be ever > 1? Edited July 20 by Nicram
iNow Posted July 20 Posted July 20 Just now, Mordred said: honest misunderstanding These don’t generally come with snide shitty remarks toward kind folks like you genuinely trying to help, but it’s your time to waste not mine so thanks for responding and informing 1
Mordred Posted July 20 Posted July 20 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Nicram said: @Mordred I ask you will a/a0 be ever > 1. You tell me, that only a0 will be one forever. Will a be ever > 1? if a is greater than 1 then the universe radius is larger than the radius of the observers universe if expansion continues ( a future event in that case). Quite frankly that should be obvious by now and if you didn't understand that relation then its no wonder you thought there was something wrong. Edited July 20 by Mordred
Nicram Posted July 20 Author Posted July 20 @Mordred I conclude that in the future a will be > 1, but a0 will remain 1, so a/a0 becomes > 1. What happens with the redshift z, if a/a0 > 1, if a0/a = 1+z ? The redshift z becomes negative, less than zero. Can you see the problem?
Mordred Posted July 20 Posted July 20 No in that case its blueshift and not redshift. The sign changes
Nicram Posted July 20 Author Posted July 20 @Mordred Yes. Are you expecting a Big Crunch? Because that's what z < 0 means.
Mordred Posted July 20 Posted July 20 Just now, Nicram said: @Mordred Yes. Are you expecting a Big Crunch? Because that's what z < 0 means. That last post has an error in it I was about to correct it higher Z >1 in past lower Z in future from the observer past/future events when the universe is expanding. The reason for this directly involves the CMB blackbody temperature. An expanding universe cools down as it expands
Nicram Posted July 20 Author Posted July 20 @Mordred what is current CMB z ? Is it 1100 or is it 0 ? According to your table: Top row: z = 1100, a = 0.001 Bottom row: z = 0, a = 1
Nicram Posted July 20 Author Posted July 20 @Mordred Bottom row: z = 0, a = 1 Is current CMB redshift z = 0 ?
Mordred Posted July 20 Posted July 20 You already have your answer one last time yes that's the correct row
Nicram Posted July 20 Author Posted July 20 @Mordred if current CMB z = 0, then it will become negative blueshift in the future and you have the Big Crunch again @Mordred if you change your mind and pick 1100 for the current redshift, then the equation a0/a = 1+z will no longer be satisfied for the current a/a0 = 1 Either way - WRONG @iNow each and every snide shitty remark as you called it was actually deserved, but it's nothing in comparison to what the downvoters like you deserve I wish you all, "science community", the worst day in your life. Bye. -3
swansont Posted July 20 Posted July 20 13 hours ago, Nicram said: Bye ! Moderator Note Ok. Thread closed; don’t bring it up again
Recommended Posts