- #36
PeterDonis
Mentor
- 47,001
- 23,425
And that is the claim that, as you have already been told several times now, is wrong.J O Linton said:I am not arguing that the expansion of the universe has been linear - only that in order to understand the basic properties of the universe we live in, a linear model is perfectly adequate, at least to a first approximation.
You can always draw a linear fit through any set of points. That doesn't mean the linear fit is a good approximation.J O Linton said:I attach a graph of log(Z) (Z = 1+z) against D. the data is taken from the NED-4D files available at https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/NED1D/intro.html.
Wrong on the infinite particle horizon. The linear universe model does not occupy all of Minkowski spacetime. It only occupies the future light cone of the "Big Bang" event. The boundary of that future light cone is the particle horizon, and it is not infinite.J O Linton said:A linear universe has an infinite particle and an infinite event horizon.
A linear universe model has no event horizon; calling it an "infinite event horizon" is not strictly correct, although I see what you mean by it.
Sure they have. You already showed a graph of how that would work in post #23. All you would need to do is add the observations that support the ##\Lambda CDM## model and rule out the other models.J O Linton said:I doubt if anyone has seriously tried to reconcile the observations with the linear model.