On Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 1:37:35 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 7/14/2025 11:13 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, July 14, 2025 at 10:52:44 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: Galaxies formed waaay after the Big Bang and we can't actually observe anything earlier than the recombination around 400,000yr after the BB. I am aware of that. Nevertheless, the red shift of distant galaxies indicates that they were receding at huge velocities, obviously after they were formed. They're receding at huge velocities from us...or are we receding at huge velocities from them. According to Inflation theory, there was a HUGE, HUGE expansion immediately after the BB, which lasted for a TINY, TINY fraction of the first second. This is generally accepted within the physics community since it answers some pressing issues such as the uniformity of the CMB. AG I don't know what JKC said about the speed of early expansion, but it seems to be increasing so it will be faster in the future than it was in the past. He claimed the early rate of expansion was exceedingly slow, and that the red shift we now observes indicates the current receding velocity. AG You do realize don't you that the uniform Hubble expansion means the further away you are from X, the faster you're "receding" from X. And since it's been a long time since galaxies formed they used to be closer together and hence were not "receding" from one another as fast, even if the expansion of the universe (the Hubble constant) was the same. Yes, I am aware of these facts. But my problem is that the light coming from those galaxies is interpreted to mean they are being observed as they existed billions of years ago, whereas the recessional velocity is occurring now and is essentially dependent on geometry; that is, if we imagine a spherically shaped universe and two separated galaxies on its expanding equator, the farther way these galaxies are separated, the faster they are receding from each other. And that's happening now. So how do you reconcile what's happening now, with what the red shift indicates occurred in the distant past? AG I think you're confused about "expansion rate" (the Hubble constant) vs "recession rate". Brent Brent On 7/14/2025 7:30 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: 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 rate of expansion is again increasing). 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/5729a540-9a81-4306-90ba-b54e96d25d9an%40googlegroups.com.
