Recent content by Jaime Rudas

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.

Friedman's equations don't describe reality at t=0.

Because for calculating the particle horizon, it's not relevant to know how many times the universe has expanded since the Big Bang. What's relevant is knowing the value of the scale factor for any moment t>0.

Yes, we can't.

I will try to clarify my previous answer: the model does not include the moment t=0 because a singularity occurs there, that is, an undefined state. The fact that there is an undefined state does not imply that, in reality, neither space nor time existed at that moment. It simply means that we...

¿And?

No, the model doesn't assume that. Where did you get that from?

I agree. Thanks for clarifying.