On Friday, 3 November 2017 20:08:37 UTC+1, Phillip Helbig wrote:
In article ,
Nicolaas Vroom writes:

I do not fully agree with your argumentation.

Why not?

I think it would be accurate if I had written:
I agree with you, but my argumentation (line of reasoning) is different

When you want to understand what we can observe you have to use the
friedmann equations.
To see the results select:
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/friedmann's%20equation%20L=0.01155.htm
In Figure 1B it is the blue line what we can see/observe.
The black line is the maximum distance of the Universe as the result
of the Big Bang. I expect this is the particle/radiation limit.
At present the size of the Universe is roughly 35 bly.

OK. How does that contradict my text above?

It does not.

Note: The OBSERVABLE universe can be arbitrarily smaller than the ENTIRE
universe.

I have a problem with the word Oservable universe.
We cannot observe the Entire universe at present, but we can observe
the entire universe in the past untill the CMB. That is the blue line.

From this simulation the claim that the expansion of the universe
undergoes acceleration is arbitrary.

Not sure what you mean by "arbitrary".

Arbitrary = I have my doubts.

[[Mod. note -- That's a rather different definition of the word
"arbitrary" than is customary in astronomy and astrophysics.

((remark to everyone in the newsgroup))
If you're going to use a word-which-already-has-a-standard-meaning
with a significantly different meaning, it would reduce misunderstanding
if you were to explicitly state your (nonstandard) definition of the
word.
-- jt]]

Based on the observed values of
the parameters, the universe is accelerating now and will do so forever,
asymptotically approaching the de Sitter model with exponential
expansion.

My simulation does not show this exponential expansion using
lambda= 0.01155. See link above
To observe exponential expansion you get that when lambda = 0.03 See:
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/friedmann's%20equation.htm#Q3

This also means that if you have a more powerfull instrument
you can not see more galaxies but only the same galaxies (in the past)
more accurate.

With a more powerful instrument, one cas see galaxies fainter than the
lower limit of a less powerful instrument. Of course, if there is some
faintest galaxy, then once that is observable a better instrument won't
show more galaxies.

IMO the most important issue when you have a more powerful instrument
the more stars (baryonic matter) you can see (*). The better you can observe
the size of an individual galaxy and observe the galaxy rotation curve.
Specific you can see to what extend this curve is straight or levels off.
If the last is true you cannot use MOND to simulate this curve, because
with MOND the curves are always straight at large distances
from the center (bulge) (?).
(*) This reduces the amount of non-baryonic matter to explain the curve

Nicolaas Vroom