All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)
Le jeu. 17 juil. 2025, 02:55, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 11:25:12 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy > Batty/Rutger Hauer) > > Le mar. 15 juil. 2025, 15:37, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 4:46:03 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 10:30 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> 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. But Clark > disputes this conclusion. He claims the opposite; that the rate of > expansion in the very early universe was exceedingly SLOW. * > > > *But Clark has never made that claim, and I should know because I am the > world's greatest expert on that man. Galaxies in the past were expanding > slower from each other than they are today,* > > > *Yes. AG* > > * but that was NOT a time when the universe was "very young". > Galaxies didn't even start to form until about 100 million years after the > Big Bang. * > > > *"Very young" is subjective. When I have time, I'll search for your > misleading claim. AG* > > > It's incredible how you never ever consider the possibility of having > misread or misunderstood something. It's always the other person at fault. > JC never made that claim, and instead of vaguely promising to "search for > it later", you should either cite it now or refrain from making > accusations. Truth isn't whatever you feel it is, it's in the actual words, > not your projections. > > Quentin > > > *That's far, very far from an objective reading of my views. I usually use > the word "seems" to indicate that my interpretation might be mistaken. In > any event, if you're interested in Clark's view, which seems ambiguous, > review again his posts on the Hubble thread, and let me know what you think > he means. Of course, the expansion of the universe was slower following > Inflation when the galaxies formed, starting around 380,000 years after the > BB, but how can the red shift of distant galaxies NOT tell us about their > recessional velocity in the distant past, which is what Clark seems to > claim? He claims it only tells us how much the universe has expanded since > their formation when photon frequency shifted from UV to red. But distant > galaxies are receding rapidly NOW? Is there no red shift from that present > recession? * > The light we see now was emitted billions of years ago, when those galaxies were much closer. The redshift tells us how much the universe has expanded since then. But from that redshift, using a cosmological model like ΛCDM, we can estimate both the galaxy’s current distance and its present recessional velocity. So while the redshift comes from ancient light, it still gives us information about the current expansion rate and how fast those galaxies are receding now, even if the light they emit today will never reach us. *What the measured red shift tell us is not at all clear, at least to me. > AG* > > > > *> If that's the case, can we conclude that the theory of Inflation must > be false, * > > > *That is a strange conclusion to make given the fact that if the > theory of Inflation is correct then the rate of expansion of the very early > unive**se was approximately 10^52 (10,000 trillion trillion trillion > trillion) times faster than it is today. * > > > *Not at all strange. If the universe was expanding very > slowing immediately after the BB, it would contradict Inflation theory. 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/0ef0ce39-ab27-4d05-872a-ecb59d934bc4n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ef0ce39-ab27-4d05-872a-ecb59d934bc4n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAMW2kApjaCtA2a9xiC7feqVNm%3DmH4a1Eh1ZBfSNoOn6VyJyOaA%40mail.gmail.com.
