Recent content by Jaime Rudas

Regarding the D&L paper, I think there might be an error in footnote 11 on page 19. Shouldn't it be ##v_{rec}(t_{em}) =\dot R(t_{em})\chi(z)##?

I think it's more about how the scientific community perceives it. In other words, the question in the OP is whether or not the scientific community is more receptive to dark-energy alternatives than to MOND-like dark-matter alternatives. My point is that it is more receptive insofar as it...

Yes, what I wanted to emphasize is that the level of skepticism is more related to whether or not the model deviates from General Relativity than to whether the model is an alternative to dark matter or dark energy.

I think the issue has to do with the fact that General Relativity is one of the most successful theories in history, so any model that deviates from it is usually viewed with skepticism. Thus, for example, quintessence or k-essence are not seen as alternatives to dark energy, but rather as...

For example, if I have an elastic band that is one centimeter long and I stretch it for one hundredth of a second, its final length will depend on the speed at which its length expands. Does that mean that the speed of expansion of length has physical meaning?

I don't know how to determine whether something has physical meaning or not. For example, I can't understand why the speed at which an object moves can have physical meaning, while the speed at which an object's length expands cannot.

Once again: I made a mistake

Once again: I made a mistake when I said I was referring to the distance traveled by the photon.

As I understand it, the peculiar speed is relative to a comoving observer, that is, with respect to an observer whose peculiar speed is zero. Thus, the distance traveled by the photon would be c times the time interval measured by that observer.

The fact that the peculiar speed of light is c is something I took from Davis & Lineweaver, and my knowledge of the subject isn't sufficient to discern whether you or they are correct.

I agree

Yes, that's the case I was referring to.

What I meant is that time inside the bubble flows at the same rate as outside (and far away from) the bubble.

I don't understand what you mean, nor do I see how it relates to what I posted.

Yes, it seems we're having problems with the issue of relative simultaneity.