Recent content by Moncy Vilavinal John

Sorry, no, the results are not identical. When we write the scale factor for a coasting model as a = mt, then the apparent magnitude-redshift (\mu -z) relation involves the parameter m. For details, please see the paper http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.043506

All coasting models are not with Ωm=ΩΛ=0. That is the entire point of the paper 1610.09885 discussed here .

The unnatural dimming of SN 1 a at large redshifts led to the discovery of accelerated expansion of the universe. This is just mentioned.

I agree this argument has some substance. Now we have both data of present expansion history and the early-universe data. But the question is, do we have to compromise a model that fits (if it so happens) the present data of present expansion history, for the sake of very early-universe data...

In 1996, the main difficulty with the publication of this coasting model was that it does not fit the decelerating present universe of `standard model'! Sure, lot of details are to be worked out. But the global features like the absence of cosmological problems, such as the coincidence problem...

Thank you for your welcome. And thank you for the links to other threads in PF. Please find another thread also discussing the eternally coasting cosmological model: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/exact-classical-correspondence-in-quantum-cosmology.830472/ That's a wild...

In the past few months, there appear some observational results supporting the linear coasting models for the universe. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/35/meta This brings the coasting models again to the centre-stage of...