-4
$\begingroup$

My question is Expanding confusion: Time integral of the reciprocal of the scaling factor from Hubble parameter equation. It was closed for the second time for a different reason - "needing details or clarity." First reason was "off-topic".

UPDATE: I no longer ask how to improve it. I strongly argue that both of these reasons were wrong, because this question is too much for moderators on this forum. This is a complaint and I'm a whistleblower in this situation.

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

I have not interacted with the post in question before, but after looking at it briefly, I'm having difficulty making sense of it. One issue is that it's really long, and most of the content seems to be irrelevant. Also, you seem to be asking about the particle horizon, but the diagrams appear to be all about redshift, which is a different topic. Ultimately I suspect you have a reasonable question about what the particle horizon means and how it's defined, but it would help to simplify and focus the question.

Aside from that, here is one question that would help me to understand what you are asking. Based on your interpretation, how do you think the particle horizon should be (mathematically) defined?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I was banned for a month. I gave you the second answer from other account, that was also suspended, and the answer was deleted. Although I clearly see, how you try to get rid of the problem without solving it, here you go again - everything below the picture of gravitational redshift. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 13 at 8:41
  • $\begingroup$ It was downvoted and deleted by ZeroTheHero and Chris with his comment, that it does not appear to be an answer to the original post. I'm not repeating it again and I'm not giving you the short version without my extended, obligatory explanation. As you very well know, our first discussion was also deleted. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 14 at 5:40
  • $\begingroup$ I recall that you suggested the particle horizon should be $ct$. Do the answers to physics.stackexchange.com/q/12049/180843 help? To be honest, many answers on this site that relate to cosmic expansion are misleading or outright wrong, even highly upvoted ones. However, the answers to that question appear to be accurate. One thing to keep in mind is that "expansion of space" is not a physically real phenomenon, it's just a coordinate convention. Cosmic expansion really just means that the contents of the universe are exploding apart. $\endgroup$
    – Sten
    Sep 14 at 8:49
  • $\begingroup$ Please, think, how honest it is of you to give me this answer without referring to everything I wrote except ct, especially to its derivation in this context and my comments to your comments expressing lack of your understanding. $\endgroup$
    – Marcin
    Sep 14 at 10:50
  • $\begingroup$ That's what I remember of what you wrote. $\endgroup$
    – Sten
    Sep 14 at 11:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .