Nicram

@Phi for All Try harder.

@Phi for All I'm sorry. I'm thinking about the direction right now... Got it. What do you think about wrapping the end of the world into a sexual harassment accusation to spread the end of the world?

https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/966/ https://astronomy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/961/

@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.

@Mordred Bottom row: z = 0, a = 1 Is current CMB redshift z = 0 ?

@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

@Mordred Yes. Are you expecting a Big Crunch? Because that's what z < 0 means.

@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 I ask you will a/a0 be ever > 1. You tell me, that only a0 will be one forever. Will a be ever > 1?

Will a/a0 be ever > 1 ?

I confirm. In our universe a is increasing. Is z increasing with a or decreasing with a in our universe?

@Mordred have you heard about rounding? Do you confirm?

Top row: z = 1100, a = 0.001 Bottom row: z = 0, a = 1 Do you confirm?

@Mordred You've just told me that half if equal to 0.5, are you aware of that?

If z = 1 for a/a0=1, what about the equation z+1 = a0/a ? I'm asking again. What's the value of z for a/a0 = 1 ?

Is the value of z > 0 for a/a0 < 1 ? @Mordred you've just changed zero to 1 for a/a0 = 1 If z = 1 for a/a0=1, what about the equation z+1 = a0/a ?

Listen, I am interested in a relation between a/a0 and z, ok? a0 = 1 and I am not going to mess with it. I am messing with a, because its a variable. What's the value of z for a/a0 = 1?

@Mordred redshift is dimensionless as well as the scale factor, what's the problem? Are you sure that the scale factor is constant?

@Mordred is the redshift 0 or infinite for a=0?

@Mordred can you say where a=0 and a=1 are?

@Mordred What is more understandable for the human brain - your table or a simple plot?

@Mordred No. I want you to take your own plot of the scale factor as a function of time and paste it. I will mark a points on its curve and you will tell me the values of the redshift in these points. How about that?

@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.

@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.

@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?