Recent content by Jaime Rudas

Yes, it's possible that it's flat, but we cannot determine that with certainty.

No, that's not the case. According to the Big Bang theory, if the universe is infinite, it has always been so.

Yes, when the uncertainty margins give us only positive or only negative values, we could be reasonably sure that the curvature is negative or positive (assuming homogeneity and isotropy, as @PeroK correctly points out). The measurements I cited were made from the cosmic microwave background...

Yes, that's what they currently point to because the best measurement of ##\Omega_{\kappa}## is ## 0.0007 \pm 0.0019##, but in the future, it could well be ## 0.00070 \pm 0.00019##, which would already point to a hyperbolic universe.

I just noticed an error in my list of equations and remembered using it here, so I'm correcting it: $$T = \frac 1 {H_0} \int_0^1 {\frac {a \hspace{2mm} da}{\sqrt{\Omega_{r_0} + \Omega_{m_0} a + \Omega_{k_0} a^2 + \Omega_{Λ_0} a^4}}}$$

Complementing what @Ibix mentioned, it might be worth mentioning that the expansion of the universe does not necessarily imply an increase in its volume but, rather, an increase in distances.

Yes, the paper concludes that the age of the universe is: ##T_U \geq 13.8 \pm 1.0## (stat) ##\pm 1.4## (syst) Gyr According to the ΛCDM model, this would be equivalent to a Hubble constant of: ##H_0 \leq 68.3^{+5.4}_{-4.7}## (stat)##^{+7.8}_{-6.4}## (syst) km/s/Mpc It should be noted that...

Yes, yes. I understand.

Understood. Hawking's viewpoints on the nature of space and time are not considered actual scientific literature. I add this point to the already long list of (to me) strange interpretations of the PF rules.

I disagree. This text is certainly not a textbook or a peer-reviewed paper, but it can't be considered a pop science book or anything other than actual scientific literature.

Isn't what Hawking wrote considered actual scientific literature?

Would conformal time, as defined by Davis & Lineweaver in equation (29), be an example of this?

Understood, but let me rephrase the question slightly: Is coordinate time equivalent to the proper time of a given clock?

Are coordinate time and cosmological time the proper time of a given clock?

It is correct even for an infinite initial size.