|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
Some years ago, I read a book which was published after
the COBE work (but well before the WMAP results) which was arguing against the Big Bang theory. Unfortunately, the name escapes me but there was one point in there that stuck. Anyway, the point was that to get to our galaxy distribution in only 14B years would have required density variations (and hence CMB variation) several orders of magnitude higher than that seen by COBE. WIthout this higher level of initial "clumping", it argued, it simply would have taken gravity much longer to aggregate the large galaxies and clusters that we see. Q: have you encountered this argument before and is it a valid argument? If so, what allows for the "fast" creation of galaxies given that the density variations of the CMB is now known to be so low? |