Hi, I've been reading about inflation, and I'm not totally convinced about how it is proposed to result in a flat universe. If I understand it correctly, inflation expanded the universe so rapidly that the actual size of the universe now is 23 orders of magnitude larger than the observable universe (according to the second section of this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe) So the initial universe got stretched to a a hugely larger size, and hence our observable universe appears flat (like a bowling ball stretched to the size of the universe - it would appear flat locally). So the part of the universe we can see is a tiny fraction of the total universe. But here's the bit which doesn't make sense to me. When we use the Hubble telescope to look deep into the observable universe, we see galaxies which are in early stages of construction. The galaxies look noticeably different to the galaxies closer to us. ("The Hubble Deep Field galaxies contained a considerably larger proportion of disturbed and irregular galaxies than the local universe" - quoted from here). This would appear to indicate that we are actually seeing a large proportion of the total universe. If we could only see a fraction of the universe then we would expect the distant galaxies to look very much the same as the galaxies nearer us. So this says to me like inflation to solve the flatness problem is wrong. And maybe inflation on the whole is wrong. Anyone? Thanks.