Given the fact that light from very distant galaxies is hugely red-shifted, and the general belief that light we're observing today from those distant galaxies, was emitted when the universe was very young, one would conclude that the rate of expansion at that time was huge. But Clark disputes this conclusion. He claims the opposite; that the rate of expansion in the very early universe was exceedingly SLOW. If that's the case, can we conclude that the theory of Inflation must be false, insofar as it alleges a huge initial expansion rate to account for the observed uniformity of the current universe? Moreover, Hubble's law confirms that as we go back in time, the universe was expanding faster than it is today, again apparently confirming the Inflation theory of a very high initial rate of expansion (ignoring recent findings the the rate of expansion is iagain ncreasing). AG
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/29b094d9-6e54-4453-9084-67f9fca130a6n%40googlegroups.com.
