Now the funniest thing. If cosmic time actually is the conformal time according to @Mordred and my physical definition for this time, is 47 Gy a present, cosmic time of the universe?

What's your answer, Science Forums?

Edited December 30, 2025Dec 30 by Jacek

2 hours ago, Jacek said:

@Phi for All I wasn't banned on Reddit's r/Astronomy for evading a ban, arguing with them or insulting anyone. I was banned for telling them they created a cancel culture, and I gave the explanation. They couldn't handle it. I couldn't even argue with them afterwards, because they muted me right away.

You know exactly why I'm calling @Mordred a liar. Go ahead, ban me, you're great at it giving 40 pages of banned users. I don't care.

I'm insulting you now because you actually are a nasty, indecent bunch of people. And @Mordred is the worst of you.

You told me not to be a m DICK about my post and my points. Go ahead, be a COMPLETE CUNT about me and ban me.

OK. Jacek/Bart/Bart2/Ravell/ad infinitum. But could you please stop loving on us so hard? Please stop joining the forum over and over again to insist on how horrible we are, it makes you look indecisive. Stay away if we're so bad. Win/win for all.

@Phi for All Jesus... I think you forgot to add all the banned users to this list to make it more impressive. It's not infinite though.

Why haven't you banned me yet?

Edited December 30, 2025Dec 30 by Jacek

One last point if you used a(t) over the entire expansion history how did you end up with a singular value of 47 Gly the scale factor varies over time.

@Mordred η=∫dη=∫dt/a(t)

If you do this integration with bottom limit equal to zero and upper limit equal to 13.8 billion years, you'll get 47 billion years. If you multiply this result by c, you'll get 47 billion light years.

Edited December 30, 2025Dec 30 by Jacek

Sounds like you already applied an age ie time zero to 13.8 haven't you

I did, because 13.8 Gy is the proper time of matter.

So age is on the rhs of the equal sign on that equation correct ? So why do you think 47 Gyrs is the age on the left hand side ?

@Mordred conformal age is on the LHS, and the upper limit of the integral on the RHS is the proper age.

56 minutes ago, Jacek said:

@Mordred η=∫dη=∫dt/a(t)

If you do this integration with bottom limit equal to zero and upper limit equal to 13.8 billion years, you'll get 47 billion years. If you multiply this result by c, you'll get 47 billion light years.

But what function did you use for a(t)?

18 minutes ago, KJW said:

But what function did you use for a(t)?

This one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model#:~:text=the%20above%20has%20an%20analytic%20solution

If you also know the explict function which doesn't neglect the radiation density, I'll be grateful if you share it. The radiation density is so negligible (even if it wasn't in the very early universe), that the integrated inverse of the scale factor function without it also gives 47 Gy and 47 Gly.

Edited December 30, 2025Dec 30 by Jacek

1 hour ago, Jacek said:

@Mordred conformal age is on the LHS, and the upper limit of the integral on the RHS is the proper age.

Thank you so when you asked if I had a problem with conformal time as the age of the Universe.

Did you specify proper age ? Instead of conformal age ?

Both are valid conformal age has the side benefict of specifying what treatment your applying. Ie conformal coordinates

Edited December 30, 2025Dec 30 by Mordred

@Mordred When I asked you about conformal time as the age of the universe, I meant conformal age of the universe, even if I didn't specify it.

Then what was the problem when I stated I had no problem with using conformal age that you felt it necessary to flame me in the manner you did since ?

8 hours ago, Jacek said:

@Mordred ...

Conformal time η=∫dη=∫dt/a(t) includes the whole expansion history, because the scale factor function of time a(t) IS the expansion history.

You're worse than a liar at this point. Much worse.

@Mordred EVERYTHING you wrote indicated that COSMIC or COSMOLOGICAL time IS THE CONFORMAL TIME.

Try to deny it, please, make my day.

---

You know exactly what I was banned for.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/140238-cancel-culture-in-major-astronomy-communities/

You shouldn't defend a liar, you know? Just a thought.

Moderator Note

OK, that’s enough.

5 hours ago, Jacek said:

Why haven't you banned me yet?

Because I only just read all this

(Phi tried but had technical difficulties)