Mordred

My sympathies for those suffering the loss of their homes and livelyhood in Jasper Alberta. 30 to 50 % loss due to wild fires. https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/jasper-townsite-damaged-by-two-wildfires

Dear Algebra please stop asking us to find your X. She is not coming back and don't ask Y !

Make for a good episode of 1000 ways to Die unfortunately that series is no more afiak lol

https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.11140v1 Cl(6) preons handy reference

I've read the paper itself and can attest it's very poorly written with very little usefulness. You can readily tell the author doesn't understand QFT and barely touches on QM. Regardless of peer review or not the paper itself has little to offer that hasn't been examined and tested already. Let's take for example Archimedes spiral vs electron spin. The spin of an electron is a complex number that requires 720 degree rotations to return to its original state. That does not work for the Archimedes spiral with its 360 degree rotation not to mention the detail that particles are not little bullets but under QFT wave excitations. Particle spin is intrinsic it does not have a classical counterpart. A wave also has transverse and longitudinal components not described by any of its mathematics. If anything its equations are rudimentary (easiest to use) of QM. The 17 fields mentioned is incorrect. Any number of fields are includes in any SM model those fields are not restricted to physical (measurable) fields but often are strictly mathematical. There is no exact number of fields of the SM model. The main problem is the acoustic oscillations it describes requires a medium in essence an Eather which we have incredibly high confidence due to Michelson and Morley type experiments of not existing.

Paper is far too lacking for its claims far too much in particle to particle interactions that cannot be accounted for. It barely touches the surface at a QM level. We already have an accounting of the quantum harmonic oscillator between particle to particle interactions those factors are already included in the Feymann path integrals. Nor to mention the Hamilton as it doesn't have any field treatments it doesn't really substantiate its claims. Archemedes spiral wheel with regards to electron seriously lol good luck with that. The other main issue being the Eather qualities to spacetime that would be needed for its oscillations.

The article is based on the Wheeler De-Witt wavefunction of the universe conjecture without using quantum geometrodynamics I will note. Being more a classical examination.

Pointless continuing particularly with your attitude bye

You already have your answer one last time yes that's the correct row

bottom row is todays universe an observer today uses this row

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

No in that case its blueshift and not redshift. The sign changes

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.

Or possibly in this case an honest misunderstanding. Particularly if one legitimately didn't know how the scale factor works

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.

Lets put it simply the one doing the Observing the scale factor and his observable universe radius is always =1 so the denominator is always set at 1 event being observed is always the numerator and your comparing the radius of the universe of the observer to the radius of the event. If you had some past observer his value will be 1 as he is the one observing and still the denominator the event remains as the numerator on top that observer is measuring

of course but if I already provide the answer can you understand my response now do you confirm

look at my top row \[a= 9.08\times 10^-4\] its right there on top

wow just wow 1/2=0.5=50% radius now=1 radius at previous or time yet to come is the numerator same with the scale factor. If radius of the universe is half the radius as it is now a=0.5 from observer now \[{\scriptsize\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline z&Scale (a)&S&T (Gyr)&D_{then}(Gly) \\ \hline 1.10e+3&9.08e-4&1.10e+3&3.66e-4&4.11e-2\\ \hline 5.46e+2&1.83e-3&5.47e+2&1.16e-3&8.18e-2\\ \hline 2.70e+2&3.69e-3&2.71e+2&3.55e-3&1.61e-1\\ \hline 1.34e+2&7.43e-3&1.35e+2&1.06e-2&3.16e-1\\ \hline 6.58e+1&1.50e-2&6.68e+1&3.08e-2&6.09e-1\\ \hline 3.22e+1&3.01e-2&3.32e+1&8.92e-2&1.15e+0\\ \hline 1.55e+1&6.07e-2&1.65e+1&2.57e-1&2.08e+0\\ \hline 7.18e+0&1.22e-1&8.18e+0&7.36e-1&3.54e+0\\ \hline 3.06e+0&2.46e-1&4.06e+0&2.10e+0&5.27e+0\\ \hline 1.01e+0&4.96e-1&2.01e+0&5.79e+0&5.56e+0\\ \hline 0.00e+0&1.00e+0&1.00e+0&1.38e+1&0.00e+0\\ \hline \end{array}}\] universe now on this graph is a=1 bottom row value of a at z=1100 top row is top row

your comparing two radius relations I already provided the answer. \(R_0=1\)\ and \(a_0=1\) when the universe is half our size you will get the answer 0.5

\[a=\frac{R}{R_o}\] set radius now as 1 (\(R_0=1\) if the radius in the numerator is the same the by simple division the answer is 1 1/1=1. Value of Z is zero...

If your discussing cosmological redshift YOU MUST include the scale factor a and understand how it works. Especially when it comes to how cosmological redshift defines Z mathematically Once again I can prove that using GR but that would likely be a waste of time 1 give you a clue the radius of a describes today is the size of the observable universe today if the size of the universe then you have no cosmological redshift

how many times have I stated above including the mathematics that its not constant The term constant of proportionality simply describes a dimensionless scalar value. look directly at the following relation \[\frac{a}{a_0}\] where \(a_0\) is scale factor today now answer your own question what would happen if you place a zero in the denominator ?

You do understand that the scale factor is a dimensionless constant do you not understand how that constant is defined ? ask yourself what calculation allows the scale factor to become dimensionless and ask yourself once again the question you just posed.

yes but you can get that answer directly from the calculator in my link including any associated graphs https://light-cone-calc.github.io/ its quite versatile but doesn't port the graphs well even getting the latex here on this site requires altering the latex commands. You can arbitrarily set any cosmological parameters you choose to use.