Talk:Scale factor (cosmology)

message: 72.196.123.2 (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: "where t is counted from the birth of the universe and t0 is the present age of the universe: "
so at a(13 billion years) is the scale factor 13 billion years ago? I thought thats what t=0 was.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIAOPSW (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  please clarify 

message: If the universe is expanding, then an object at 1m away from an observer is moving at a velocity v, at 2 m a velocity 2v and so in. The dimensions of this are velocity/distance, which reduces down to simply 1/time. So it would make sense to measure rate of expansion in units of seconds, as in "number of seconds for a distance to double".
I have a different question:
if the universe is expanding, then there is a horizon beyond which it's expanding faster than the speed of light relative to us. That's an event horizon, and so it must be giving off hawking radiation. Is this related to cosmic background radiation?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Murray (talk • contribs) 04:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  And note that by the Friedmann equations the scale factor has units of distance. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale factor units 

message: Is there any place where we have historical values for a, a' and a\'\' the scale and its first two derivatives during the intervening timescales from Big Bang -to- now?  I can find no graph for this, no papers on it. 67.188.202.139 (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  historical values 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Scale factor (cosmology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101128035752/http://curious.astro.cornell.edu:80/question.php?number=575 to http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there an error in the article? How can \ddot{a}(t) be positive and yet "H parameter decreases"? Reasoning and the math is not telling me that.  As an approximation, I thought double cosmological time from now will have non-local galaxies twice as far apart, if H were constant as was previously assumed.  Ywaz (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: \ddot{a}(t)>0 implies that \dot{a}(t) increases, but not that \dot{a}(t)>0. Something can increase and be negative. - DVdm (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can <math>\ddot{a}(t)</math> be positive and yet H decreases? 

message: That ^ --TiagoTiago (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs graphics and animations 

message: This article cites the transition from the radiation-dominated era to the matter-dominated era as occurring 47,000 years after the Big Bang, with a citation. [Chronology of the universe#Early universe] puts the time at 70,000 years ago, with a different citation. I've googled around several physics pages and found still other estimates. So how firm are these numbers? Would it make more sense to give a general time, or to at least note that there are a range of proposed times for the shift? 
131.96.47.18 (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How well established are the time periods?  

message: Please, clarify the exponential growth / source the derivation of the Dark Energy dominated universe.
--77.215.232.29 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify the exponential growth