Does Hubble's Law tell us how rapidly the universe expanded in its very early history?

[Alan Grayson]

I think not. It just tell us how rapidly it is expanding at different distance, but at the same time, NOW. So, there is no basis for the claim it was expanding very slowly in its very early history. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, August 24, 2025 at 10:03:20 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

I think not. It just tell us how rapidly it is expanding at different distance, but at the same time, NOW. So, there is no basis for the claim it was expanding very slowly in its very early history. AG

Clark, what is the logic underlying your claim that in the very early universe, the universe was expanding very slowly? The way I see it, from Hubble's law we can't make any conclusion about the expansion rate of the very early universe.  TY, AG

[Alan Grayson]

Once we know the universe is expanding, and the rate is somewhere between 67 and 73 km/sec/mpsec, can't we infer the rate was higher in the very early universe since it has slowed since then due to gravitational attraction? IOW, the rate was more rapid in the early universe than at present. Yet you claim it was much lower. What's your reasoning? TY, AG 

[Alan Grayson]

Clark; my comment above makes sense. How can it be denied, that the very early universe expanded rapidly, not slowly? Cat got your tongue? AG 

[John Clark]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 6:15 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

Clark, what is the logic underlying your claim that in the very early universe, the universe was expanding very slowly?

I've mentioned the following before. You ask a question. I take the time to answer your question and try hard to write as clearly as possible. You then ask the EXACT same question again without challenging or mentioning anything I said or even given an indication that you had read my previous answer. I find such behavior annoying and I don't believe my attitude is unreasonable. 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ngf

On Sunday, August 24, 2025 at 10:03:20 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

I think not. It just tell us how rapidly it is expanding at different distance, but at the same time, NOW. So, there is no basis for the claim it was expanding very slowly in its very early history. AG

Clark, what is the logic underlying your claim that in the very early universe, the universe was expanding very slowly? The way I see it, from Hubble's law we can't make any conclusion about the expansion rate of the very early universe.  TY, 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c68e630b-e582-4e83-a810-044456457db6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alan Grayson]

On Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 2:06:35 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 6:15 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

Clark, what is the logic underlying your claim that in the very early universe, the universe was expanding very slowly?

I've mentioned the following before. You ask a question. I take the time to answer your question and try hard to write as clearly as possible. You then ask the EXACT same question again without challenging or mentioning anything I said or even given an indication that you had read my previous answer. I find such behavior annoying and I don't believe my attitude is unreasonable. 

Evasive BS!  AG

n

[Alan Grayson]

As I recall, you made the emphatic claim, at least twice, that in the very early universe (but after the galaxies formed), that the galaxies were closely situated, and receded from each other at low velocities. I do NOT recall any proof of concept. On the other hand, I gave a basic argument that in fact the rate of recession had to be rapid at that time, since it's now between 67 and 73 km/sec/mpsec, and was SLOWED since that time by gravity, which, last I heard is attractive, so it would slow the rate of expansion. I'd be interested in seeing again what you claim was your proof. AG 

[John Clark]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 2:09 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As I recall, you made the emphatic claim, at least twice, that in the very early universe (but after the galaxies formed), that the galaxies were closely situated, and receded from each other at low velocities. I do NOT recall any proof of concept.

Astronomers have observational evidence that the universe started to accelerate about 5 billion years ago, 9 billion years after the big bang. If something is accelerating that means it's getting faster. Therefore 5 billion years ago, before that acceleration started, galaxies must've been moving away from each other slower than they are now. 

 

> On the other hand, I gave a basic argument that in fact the rate of recession had to be rapid at that time, since it's now between 67 and 73 km/sec/mpsec, and was SLOWED since that time by gravity, which, last I heard is attractive. so it would slow the rate of expansion.

 

Have you also heard that there is a thing called "Dark Energy"? I've said all this before but I'll say it one more time. We don't know much about it but one of the few things we do know is that Dark Energy is a repulsive force which means it causes things to SPEED UP. Most think Dark Energy is a property of space itself, that's why for the first 9 billion years of the universe's existence Dark Energy didn't have much effect on things, back then the speed of recession between galaxies was slowing down due to gravity just as you'd expect. But as the galaxys expanded the density of matter decreased, and therefore the force of gravity trying to slow things down also decreased. 

However, the expansion of space means more space is being created, and if Dark Energy is a property of space itself then, unlike gravity, it is NOT being diluted. The force of Dark Energy trying to speed things up remained constant, but the force of gravity, trying to slow things down, kept getting weaker because the density of matter kept getting lower. Dark Energy became stronger than gravity 5 billion years ago and remains stronger to this day. 

> I'd be interested in seeing again what you claim was your proof. AG 

As I've mentioned before, a scientist can prove that something is wrong and he can show that something is probably right, but proving that something is absolutely correct can only be found in the realm of pure mathematics, not in physics or in any other branch of science.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

4vr

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, August 29, 2025 at 5:15:32 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 2:09 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As I recall, you made the emphatic claim, at least twice, that in the very early universe (but after the galaxies formed), that the galaxies were closely situated, and receded from each other at low velocities. I do NOT recall any proof of concept.

Astronomers have observational evidence that the universe started to accelerate about 5 billion years ago, 9 billion years after the big bang.

It started to accelerate, OR was already accelerating 5 billion years ago, and then accelerated more? This is important for your argument, but I've never heard that before -- that's there's EVIDENCE for your claim (that it STARTED to accelerate 5 billion years ago). AG

 

If something is accelerating that means it's getting faster. Therefore 5 billion years ago, before that acceleration started, galaxies must've been moving away from each other slower than they are now. 

 

> On the other hand, I gave a basic argument that in fact the rate of recession had to be rapid at that time, since it's now between 67 and 73 km/sec/mpsec, and was SLOWED since that time by gravity, which, last I heard is attractive. so it would slow the rate of expansion.

 

Have you also heard that there is a thing called "Dark Energy"? I've said all this before but I'll say it one more time. We don't know much about it but one of the few things we do know is that Dark Energy is a repulsive force which means it causes things to SPEED UP. Most think Dark Energy is a property of space itself, that's why for the first 9 billion years of the universe's existence Dark Energy didn't have much effect on things, back then the speed of recession between galaxies was slowing down due to gravity just as you'd expect. But as the galaxys expanded the density of matter decreased, and therefore the force of gravity trying to slow things down also decreased. 

Dark Energy may or may not exist, but if it does and is responsible for the speeding up, it doesn't imply the galaxies were receding from each other slowly before DE speeded the expansion. The receding could have been slow before DE became a factor, OR it could have been receding rapidly and that rate was increased by DE. IOW, we just don't know whether the expansion started slowly or rapidly. AG  

However, the expansion of space means more space is being created, and if Dark Energy is a property of space itself then, unlike gravity, it is NOT being diluted. The force of Dark Energy trying to speed things up remained constant, but the force of gravity, trying to slow things down, kept getting weaker because the density of matter kept getting lower. Dark Energy became stronger than gravity 5 billion years ago and remains stronger to this day. 

> I'd be interested in seeing again what you claim was your proof. AG 

As I've mentioned before, a scientist can prove that something is wrong and he can show that something is probably right, but proving that something is absolutely correct can only be found in the realm of pure mathematics, not in physics or in any other branch of science.  

Actually, sometimes even in pure mathematics we can't always reach absolute conclusions, a good example of which is the CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS. AG 

4vr

[John Clark]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 8:17 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

It started to accelerate, OR was already accelerating 5 billion years ago, and then accelerated more?

Not counting the period of inflation which only lasted a tiny fraction of a nanosecond, during the first 9 billion years of the universe's existence its expansion was decelerating, but then about 5 billion years ago things changed and it started to accelerate for reasons that I have already mentioned.  

> This is important for your argument, but I've never heard that before 

You have just confirmed something that I have long suspected, you do not read my posts because I've certainly mentioned it before.  Below are the original articles announcing the discovery made independently by two teams back in 1998 that they both received Nobel prizes for.

Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant

MEASUREMENTS OF Ω  FROM 42 HIGH-REDSHIFT SUPERNOVAE

 

> Dark Energy may or may not exist,

Dark energy is the name we have given to whatever is accelerating the universe, we had to call it something. The universe is definitely accelerating so Dark Energy, whatever it is, definitely exists.  

  > if it does and is responsible for the speeding up, it doesn't imply the galaxies were receding from each other slowly before DE speeded the expansion.

Huh?  If you make a thing move faster then you make it move faster. And the great thing about tautologies is that they are ALWAYS true. 

> Actually, sometimes even in pure mathematics we can't always reach absolute conclusions, a good example of which is the CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS. AG 

But it has been proven you can assume  that the continuum hypothesis is true or you can assume that the continuum hypothesis is not true, but neither assumption will produce a contradiction to existing mathematics. It doesn't matter, so to my mind that indicates that the continuum hypothesis is just not very important. 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

f8q

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, August 29, 2025 at 8:07:55 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 8:17 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

It started to accelerate, OR was already accelerating 5 billion years ago, and then accelerated more?

Not counting the period of inflation which only lasted a tiny fraction of a nanosecond, during the first 9 billion years of the universe's existence its expansion was decelerating, but then about 5 billion years ago things changed and it started to accelerate for reasons that I have already mentioned.  

> This is important for your argument, but I've never heard that before 

You have just confirmed something that I have long suspected, you do not read my posts because I've certainly mentioned it before. 

Do us all a big favor and cease your BS'ing. Those articles below I haven't read because they assert what I already knew; that two teams discovered the universe was accelerating in 1998. Where is the EVIDENCE in your claim above, that the rate of expansion was SLOWING from the time the galaxies formed, for about 9 billion years? I don't recall any of your posts where you stated or proved that. AG 

 

Below are the original articles announcing the discovery made independently by two teams back in 1998 that they both received Nobel prizes for.

Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant

MEASUREMENTS OF Ω  FROM 42 HIGH-REDSHIFT SUPERNOVAE

 

> Dark Energy may or may not exist,

Dark energy is the name we have given to whatever is accelerating the universe, we had to call it something. The universe is definitely accelerating so Dark Energy, whatever it is, definitely exists.  

  > if it does and is responsible for the speeding up, it doesn't imply the galaxies were receding from each other slowly before DE speeded the expansion.

Huh?  If you make a thing move faster then you make it move faster. And the great thing about tautologies is that they are ALWAYS true. 

Obviously, you don't understand what I wrote, and it's certainly not a tautology. AG 

> Actually, sometimes even in pure mathematics we can't always reach absolute conclusions, a good example of which is the CONTINUUM HYPOTHESIS. AG 

But it has been proven you can assume  that the continuum hypothesis is true or you can assume that the continuum hypothesis is not true, but neither assumption will produce a contradiction to existing mathematics. It doesn't matter, so to my mind that indicates that the continuum hypothesis is just not very important. 

What's "important" here is in the mind of mathematicans. And IMO you've misstated the result. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, August 29, 2025 at 1:09:46 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, August 29, 2025 at 8:07:55 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 8:17 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

It started to accelerate, OR was already accelerating 5 billion years ago, and then accelerated more?

Not counting the period of inflation which only lasted a tiny fraction of a nanosecond, during the first 9 billion years of the universe's existence its expansion was decelerating, but then about 5 billion years ago things changed and it started to accelerate for reasons that I have already mentioned.  

> This is important for your argument, but I've never heard that before 

You have just confirmed something that I have long suspected, you do not read my posts because I've certainly mentioned it before. 

Do us all a big favor and cease your BS'ing. Those articles below I haven't read because they assert what I already knew; that two teams discovered the universe was accelerating in 1998. Where is the EVIDENCE in your claim above, that the rate of expansion was SLOWING from the time the galaxies formed, for about 9 billion years? I don't recall any of your posts where you stated or proved that. AG 

Sure, the expansion was slowing due to gravity, but this doesn't necessarily mean the rate was initially slow, which was your UNPROVEN claim! WTF. AG 

[John Clark]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 3:09 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do us all a big favor and cease your BS'ing. Those articles below I haven't read because they assert what I already knew; that two teams discovered the universe was accelerating in 1998. Where is the EVIDENCE in your claim above, that the rate of expansion was SLOWING from the time the galaxies formed, for about 9 billion years? I don't recall any of your posts where you stated or proved that. AG 

The following quote is from  Expansion of the universe :

 

"The very earliest expansion, called inflation saw the universe suddenly expand by a factor of at least 10²⁶ in every direction about 10⁻³² of a second after the Big Bang. Cosmic expansion subsequently decelerated to much slower rates, until around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually 

expand more quickly, and is still doing so." 

The following quote is from Accelerating expansion of the universe:

"The accelerated expansion of the universe is thought to have begun since the universe entered its dark-energy-dominated era roughly 5 billion years ago"

 

> Dark Energy may or may not exist,

>Dark energy is the name we have given to whatever is accelerating the universe, we had to call it something. The universe is definitely accelerating so Dark Energy, whatever it is, definitely exists.  

  >>> if it does and is responsible for the speeding up, it doesn't imply the galaxies were receding from each other slowly before DE speeded the expansion.

>>Huh?  If you make a thing move faster then you make it move faster. And the great thing about tautologies is that they are ALWAYS true. 

 

>Obviously, you don't understand what I wrote,

True, but that's not the big question. Do you understand what you wrote?  

 

> and it's certainly not a tautology. AG 

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

iad

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, August 30, 2025 at 4:34:30 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 3:09 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do us all a big favor and cease your BS'ing. Those articles below I haven't read because they assert what I already knew; that two teams discovered the universe was accelerating in 1998. Where is the EVIDENCE in your claim above, that the rate of expansion was SLOWING from the time the galaxies formed, for about 9 billion years? I don't recall any of your posts where you stated or proved that. AG 

The following quote is from  Expansion of the universe :

 

"The very earliest expansion, called inflation saw the universe suddenly expand by a factor of at least 10²⁶ in every direction about 10⁻³² of a second after the Big Bang. Cosmic expansion subsequently decelerated to much slower rates, until around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually 

expand more quickly, and is still doing so." 

The following quote is from Accelerating expansion of the universe:

"The accelerated expansion of the universe is thought to have begun since the universe entered its dark-energy-dominated era roughly 5 billion years ago"

I never disputed that conclusion; only yours, that it implies that after the galaxies formed, the universe was expanding very slowly. Sure, after that the expansion slowed due to gravity, but the discovery of the accelerated expansion says NOTHING about the much earlier rate of expansion. AG 

 

> Dark Energy may or may not exist,

>Dark energy is the name we have given to whatever is accelerating the universe, we had to call it something. The universe is definitely accelerating so Dark Energy, whatever it is, definitely exists.  

  >>> if it does and is responsible for the speeding up, it doesn't imply the galaxies were receding from each other slowly before DE speeded the expansion.

>>Huh?  If you make a thing move faster then you make it move faster. And the great thing about tautologies is that they are ALWAYS true. 

 

>Obviously, you don't understand what I wrote,

True, but that's not the big question. Do you understand what you wrote?  

 

> and it's certainly not a tautology. AG 

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.  

Cease with the riddles and say explicitly what you mean. I never posted a tautology! AG 

[John Clark]

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 6:56 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

The following quote is from  Expansion of the universe :

 

"The very earliest expansion, called inflation saw the universe suddenly expand by a factor of at least 10²⁶ in every direction about 10⁻³² of a second after the Big Bang. Cosmic expansion subsequently decelerated to much slower rates, until around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so." 

The following quote is from Accelerating expansion of the universe:

"The accelerated expansion of the universe is thought to have begun since the universe entered its dark-energy-dominated era roughly 5 billion years ago"

> I never disputed that conclusion; only yours, that it implies that after the galaxies formed, the universe was expanding very slowly.

Expanding "very slowly" compared with the expansion of the universe during inflation certainly. I will now make a statement that you dispute that I am nevertheless absolutely certain is true: 

Today galaxies are expanding faster than they were before galaxies started expanding faster. 

The reason I would be willing to bet my life on the above statement being true is because all tautologies are true.

 

> Sure, after that the expansion slowed due to gravity, but the discovery of the accelerated expansion says NOTHING about the much earlier rate of expansion. AG 

Yet more evidence that you don't read what I write, not even the parts that I underline. 

"Cosmic expansion subsequently decelerated to much slower rates, until around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so." 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

emq

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, August 30, 2025 at 5:20:04 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 6:56 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

The following quote is from  Expansion of the universe :

 

"The very earliest expansion, called inflation saw the universe suddenly expand by a factor of at least 10²⁶ in every direction about 10⁻³² of a second after the Big Bang. Cosmic expansion subsequently decelerated to much slower rates, until around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so." 

The following quote is from Accelerating expansion of the universe:

"The accelerated expansion of the universe is thought to have begun since the universe entered its dark-energy-dominated era roughly 5 billion years ago"

> I never disputed that conclusion; only yours, that it implies that after the galaxies formed, the universe was expanding very slowly.

Expanding "very slowly" compared with the expansion of the universe during inflation certainly. I will now make a statement that you dispute that I am nevertheless absolutely certain is true: 

Today galaxies are expanding faster than they were before galaxies started expanding faster. 

The reason I would be willing to bet my life on the above statement being true is because all tautologies are true.

What tautology are you referring to? You really need to get your act together and cease with your foolish accusations. AG  

> Sure, after that the expansion slowed due to gravity, but the discovery of the accelerated expansion says NOTHING about the much earlier rate of expansion. AG 

Yet more evidence that you don't read what I write, not even the parts that I underline. 

More mind-reading by the a'hole-in-chief. AG 

"Cosmic expansion subsequently decelerated to much slower rates, until around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so." 

Decelerated from what? That's the issue, in case you can't remember. Sure, I read it, several times in fact, but I see no EVIDENCE for the conclusion you've fallen in love with; that in the very early universe, the rate of expansion was very low. Do you know the difference between FACT and CONJECTURE? AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, August 30, 2025 at 5:33:59 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, August 30, 2025 at 5:20:04 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 6:56 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

The following quote is from  Expansion of the universe :

 

"The very earliest expansion, called inflation saw the universe suddenly expand by a factor of at least 10²⁶ in every direction about 10⁻³² of a second after the Big Bang. Cosmic expansion subsequently decelerated to much slower rates, until around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so." 

The following quote is from Accelerating expansion of the universe:

"The accelerated expansion of the universe is thought to have begun since the universe entered its dark-energy-dominated era roughly 5 billion years ago"

If you believe the results from the JWST, galaxies formed very soon after the time of recombination, 378,000 years after the BB, say within a few hundred million years. The galaxies were very closely packed at that time, but their rate of separation, or shall we say expansion, cannot IMO be determined by the 1998 discovery. You prefer, and believe, the rate was very slow AT THAT TIME. But that's just your conjecture. I believe it was very rapid since the BB was likely a hugely violent event. But I can't prove that, and never claimed I could. AG 

[ilsa]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/24358065777213696/?mibextid=9drbnH&s=yWDuG2&fs=e

Ilsa Bartlett

Institute for Rewiring the System
http://ilsabartlett.wordpress.com

http://www.google.com/profiles/ilsa.bartlett
www.hotlux.com/angel

"Don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person."
-John Coltrane

--

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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/289eae68-148a-4836-81c3-88465c476998n%40googlegroups.com.

[Cosmin Visan]

All kinds of hallucinations that professors-priests call them "theory" in order to keep their jobs in order to have access to girls.