Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Hellbound]

OK, now seriously, for the inflation background to stay constant, is there energy created? -- from, say, the annihilation of matter? some other source? -- in order to drive inflation?
Hey, I'm not in a position to enter this debate -- I'm just interested in how the standard inflation model works.

WARNING: I am not an expert.

That being said...

I'll give you my layman's understanding, and I'm sure our resident experts can fill in and/or correct anything I mess up.

But basically, gravity is counterbalanced against the energy of the inflation field. As the inflation, well, inflates, gravitational energy within the area necessarily increases. Gravity is often referred to as a "negative" energy, and in this case it would balance out the energy gained by the inflation field.

I'm sure that's horribly simplified and probably inaccurate, but I think it's true to the basic idea, and in any case my simple explanations often coax more complete ones from certain knowledgable posters (there is method to my madness ).

 

[Ziggurat]

Beats me. We use Newton's formulas for most if not all interstellar space travel.

Well, apparently you don't. Because a sun with a solid iron core would attract the planets far more strongly than it does. Tell me: what do you think the mass of the sun is? Ballpark figure will do.

Will my pen fall if I drop it? Does any math formula prevent me from "experiencing" gravity?

Yet another dodge. You cannot demonstrate that space is curved.

It's possible it's related to a quantum process for all I know.

Evidently you don't know much, because GR is explicitly NOT quantum.

I do know I experience here and now

Not curved space, you don't.

They show up in the lab.

Exactly: curved space isn't necessary to have a force. So why on earth should I believe it exists? If curved space isn't real (and no experiment on earth can show it is), then general relativity MUST be completely wrong. Not kinda wrong, not a good approximation that breaks down at some point, but wrong from start to finish. Yet you yourself think it's not. So either you're an idiot, or you are not applying the same standard of proof to general relativity that you require of inflation.

Everything you have said boils down to a popularity fallacy. Inflation is well accepted, therefore it must be "true". Bull.

I said nothing of the sort. Inflation doesn't have to be true. But it's the best theory we've got right now (as in, it provides the closest fit to our observations). It is that fit with observations, not its popularity, that demonstrates its utility. And you have provided no reason other than your own incredulity for why we should discount it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong - No one has ever had the susutained fusion that occurs in the sun.

Fusion energy releases have been demonstrated on Earth. Right or wrong, standard theory is predicated upon known and demonstrated laws of physics. I have no doubt that fusion energy *could* power the sun, even if I can't physically replicated the conditions here on Earth.

I can't get inflation to do squat on Earth, and not one single consumer product uses inflation. They'd be sued if they tried to claim anything "works" on inflation in fact.

Did that - no mention of gigatesla magnetic fields produced in labs here on Earth.

I'm fine with letting you "scale" any "known and demonstrated" force of nature. I'm not fine with letting you assign magical math properties to elves and dark inflation faeries.

There is someone called Michael Mozina who is (according to your beliefs) making an idoit of himself by studying stars without having a star in an Earth-based lab.

Birkeland created a fine simulation for studying the basics, like solar wind acceleration, coronal loop formation, "jets", auroral activity, all the things we observe inside our solar system.

Perhaps you could definitely state your position as regards astronomical based observations used as experimental evidence.

If you would like to use a *known and physically demonstrated* force of nature, or the curvature of space time if that term suits you, I'm fine with letting you "scale" things to size, and see if your math works out ok. If you intend to simply "make up" stuff, slap math to it, "foregetaboutit".

Do you regard all astronomical observations as experimental evidence?

No. They lack a "control mechanism" of any sort. They are "observations" that will be open to "interpretation" and might be useful in sorting out various math formulas related to *KNOWN AND DEMONSTRATED* forces of nature.

If not how do you distinguish between an astronomical observation that is experimental evidence and one that is not experimental evidence?

One has a "control mechanism" (could be a simple as a "switch" for all I care) and the other is simply a pure observation with no ability to control any of the parameters of the experiment.

Do you regard no astronomical observation as experimental evidence?

Not unless you have some way to control that astronomical observation in some way.

I'll be happy to let you sort out which mathematical models might be useful based on these observations, but I won't let you make up dark magic faeries and slap some math to the idea and then claim "faeries did it as you can see from my math".

That's a basic problem in the industry of astronomy. They can't tell an "observation" from a real "experiment" that has a real "control mechanism".

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not going to repeat myself yet again. You've ignored mathematics,

The only mathematics I've ignored had no units assigned to it and was predicated on nonsensical word salad "explanations".

physics,

What "physics"? You can't get inflation to do one "physical" thing to anything on Earth. No consumer product uses "inflation" to do anything useful "physically". There's not a *SHRED* of "physics" to your idea., it's mathematical mythos, nothing more.

and the basic facts at hand

What might those be? The "fact" is that you can't produce anything that runs on inflation or dark energy. Period. That is scientific *fact*. The rest is pure mathematical card shuffling.

so there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

There's no sense in pretending you have "facts" that don't exist.

You were going to look at the math "this afternoon". Yet another lie, apparently.

I did that. I asked you for some units of measurement and you *refused* to provide them. You *made up* the word "condensate' to mean anything you wished it to mean in the moment. I had nothing whatsoever to do with a real Higg's condensate which *is* composed of Higg's "particles". You don't have any reason to talk to me if you intend to make up words, refuse any attempt to get you to provide any units of measurement and continue to pretend you know what you're talking about when it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

You did not describe a "Higgs condensate" as you claimed because a Higgs condensate is indeed composed of Higgs particles. Whatever you're describing is another of those math mythos thingies that will *never* show up in a lab and that defies a rational physical explanation of concept.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Query: Is it your contention that science deals only with controlled, terrestrial, laboratory experiments, and all other forms of observation are necessarily unscientific? Please try to give an explanatory answer free of invective, name calling, and general temper tantrums.

Fair enough.

It is my contention that "empirical science" deals only with *known and demonstrated* forces/curvatures of nature. It is legitimate to scale any of these known forces/curvatures to size and to "verify or falsify" various physical models based upon observations. PC/EU theory is such an "empirical science". It attempts to apply MDH theory and GR theory to objects in space.

 

[Michael Mozina]

WARNING: I am not an expert.

That being said...

I'll give you my layman's understanding, and I'm sure our resident experts can fill in and/or correct anything I mess up.

But basically, gravity is counterbalanced against the energy of the inflation field.

Let me see any of them "counterbalance" gravity with inflation here on Earth. It ain't gonna happen. They made it up.

You can't 'counter"" anything with gravity. All mass has energy. All mass has a gravitational influence on all other forms of mass. Period.

As the inflation, well, inflates, gravitational energy within the area necessarily increases.

How might that happen? You've added more mass, and therefore more gravity and more energy to the system. Gravity doesn't "counterbalance" squat. It is simply a property of mass and energy.

Gravity is often referred to as a "negative" energy,

That's the "baloney" part right there. Mass and energy are interchangeble. Gravity isn't "negative" anything, it's just "gravity".

and in this case it would balance out the energy gained by the inflation field.

If this were all true, then they should have no trouble building a spaceship based on inflation so they can counterbalance gravity and going flying away into the sunset. So far, 25 years after they jumped on the bandwagon, the whole lot of them can't get inflation to move of single atom here on Earth. Ya right. It's mathematical mythos and it's a bunch of baloney.

I'm sure that's horribly simplified and probably inaccurate, but I think it's true to the basic idea, and in any case my simple explanations often coax more complete ones from certain knowledgable posters (there is method to my madness ).

Unfortunately it is actually a relatively accurate portrayal of Guth's ideas, and they stink to high heaven. Not one single product runs on inflation. I can show you tons of products in Walmart that run on "electricity". Unfortunately "electricity" is the one forbidden topic of astronomy so they just make stuff up as they go now.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Michael Mozina:

I'm curious: Is it only inflation theory that you disagree with or do you have problems with some other or all aspects of the big bang theory?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina:

I'm curious: Is it only inflation theory that you disagree with or do you have problems with some other or all aspects of the big bang theory?

Well, I've never seen a working demonstration of "space" expansion, whatever that might be. This idea of "dark energy" sounds positively "metaphysical" from my perspective. Got a gram of "dark matter"? Mind you, I'm ok with MACHO variations of DM theory, but when folks start talking about SUSY particles, my skeptical instincts start to wince. Do you mean besides the fact that Lambda-CMD Theory technically only actually "explains" (with real known objects and forces/curvatures) 4% of the known universe and 96% of it is 'fudge factor' to make it work?

I can't think of *any* cosmology theory I have less belief in than Lambda-CMD theory. It's not much of a "physics" theory if you ask me, it's more of a mathematical mythos, with magical forces.

 

[Tim Thompson]

What is Science?

It is my contention that "empirical science" deals only with *known and demonstrated* forces/curvatures of nature.

So, if we are only allowed to explain the observed behavior of the universe through known & demonstrated forces & etc., then how do we ever discover anything new?

It is my contention that the whole point of science is inference from observation pure & simple. If the known does not work, then you appeal to the unknown until something works. That's how the unknown becomes known. In fact, I see no other way ever to learn anything new. That's how the neutrino was discovered, by simply postulating that it exists, which was more comfortable than accepting the face value result that energy was not conserved. It turned out to be the right thing to do.

To refer to dark matter & dark energy as "metaphysical" seems absurd to me. After all, dark matter is nothing more complicated than the assumption that there is more stuff than we can see. Why is that so bizarre? Where is the rule written down in the Laws of Nature that we must be able to clearly & easily see all matter? Likewise, as long as we accept the idea of an expanding universe, then "dark energy" is simply an extension of the idea that adds a negative pressure to push the expansion along. Both seem to me to be simple & pristine ideas, far less complicated and far easier to understand than any alternative suggested by anyone.

Furthermore, you exaggerate the importance of controlled laboratory experiments in science. When I say inference from observation I mean any observation of anything under any circumstances. The laws of physics as we derive them from controlled laboratory experiments are an arbiter of what we do & do not accept. That's why we postulate the existence of the unknown neutrino, because we are otherwise forced to deny the validity of the laws of physics derived from controlled experiments. We use those laws of physics as surrogates for the controlled experiments. Hence, in astronomy almost all observations are definitely not in the style of controlled laboratory experiments, but we do not drop the entire discipline. No, we use the laws of physics derived from controlled experiments to interpret the uncontrolled observation of the astronomer. It seems to me a perfectly rational thing to do, I cannot imagine any fundamental, logical objection to the process.

It is those laws of physics, specifically the saintly second law of thermodynamics, which lead directly to the idea of inflation in big bang cosmology. How else does one explain the fact that the temperature of the universe (the Planck Law temperature of the CMB) is so nearly the same in all directions? As long as we are working inside the paradigm of an expanding universe, inflation is the obvious (and simplest) explanation for that observation, unless we wish to abandon the laws of physics as derived from controlled experiments. The fact that inflation itself is not replicable in a controlled laboratory experiment seems quite irrelevant to me, and quite opposed to the fundamental nature of science.

I think you & I are destined to disagree rather profoundly on what constitutes "science".

 

[sol invictus]

The only mathematics I've ignored had no units assigned to it

Gibberish.

I gave an argument that proves that any scalar field acts precisely in the way you were just claiming is completely impossible. It makes no difference whatsoever what the magnitude of the potential is - the proof is completely general. It holds no matter what the "units" are.

You're plainly a complete novice at the mathematics and physics involved here, and yet you post these arrogant diatribes against the entire field of experts. They're all wrong, from Einstein to Feynman to Guth, and you're correct (even though you don't understand even the most basic equations of the theory).

It's obvious to everyone reading this thread that you're a just a troll - you realize that, right? With every post you make it more obvious.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Well, I've never seen a working demonstration of "space" expansion, whatever that might be. This idea of "dark energy" sounds positively "metaphysical" from my perspective. Got a gram of "dark matter"? Mind you, I'm ok with MACHO variations of DM theory, but when folks start talking about SUSY particles, my skeptical instincts start to wince. Do you mean besides the fact that Lambda-CMD Theory technically only actually "explains" (with real known objects and forces/curvatures) 4% of the known universe and 96% of it is 'fudge factor' to make it work?

I can't think of *any* cosmology theory I have less belief in than Lambda-CMD theory. It's not much of a "physics" theory if you ask me, it's more of a mathematical mythos, with magical forces.

Thanks. OK, I think I understand your position. I share your skepticism (to a degree) with aspects of current mainstream cosmology; however, I am persuaded that the prevailing theories have the weight of observational evidence (yes, there are dissonances like "dark flows, etc). In any case, as a layman, I find it difficult to reject the views of thousands of theorists throughout the world, who have a deep knowledge and strong dedication to studying these questions.
Do I understand correctly that since you do not accept "space expansion" (as you describe it), it means that you reject the big bang theory and embrace some sort of "steady state" view of cosmology?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Another question: Do I understand correctly that you do not object to some theories of CDM but it is only dark energy that you have problems with?

 

[Hellbound]

I'm going to make one reply, then I'm done, because, first, I was trying to assiste Perpetual Student in gaining a general understanding ( a visualization concept), not to rigourously define the properties and interactions involved, and second because you obviously won't listen to any evidence or ideas that conflict with your pet theories. That being said, here we go.

Let me see any of them "counterbalance" gravity with inflation here on Earth. It ain't gonna happen. They made it up.

No. The properties of the filed were determined by trying to find out what type of field would produce effects consistent with current observations. It wasn't just "made up". It would be similar to someone finding a crater, with bits of debris scattered around it. You can look at the properties of the crater and debris (range of scatter, directionality of the crater, heat damage versus physical damage, etc) to determine the properties of what made the explosion.

You can't 'counter"" anything with gravity. All mass has energy. All mass has a gravitational influence on all other forms of mass. Period.

See, but who's added mass? You're adding things into it that aren't there. The inflation field expands space, not mass.

How might that happen? You've added more mass, and therefore more gravity and more energy to the system. Gravity doesn't "counterbalance" squat. It is simply a property of mass and energy.

Again, there is no mass. If you're going to argue against the model, you need to argue against the theory, not against your misconceptions of the model.

That's the "baloney" part right there. Mass and energy are interchangeble. Gravity isn't "negative" anything, it's just "gravity".

And you keep bringing up mass. We're talking about energy. And mass and energy are not interchangeable in the sense you use the term. They can be converted into each other, but they aren't equivalent in every degree. In any case, that's more of a shorthand description (that's what those littlew " marks mean, you know..that it isn't entirely accurate). In any case, the equations show that as space expands, gravity increases within the inflated area. The sum of this increase counterbalances the energy in the inflation field. By coyunterbalances I mean that (increase in gravitational energy within the inflated area)=(increase in energy of the inflation field).

If this were all true, then they should have no trouble building a spaceship based on inflation so they can counterbalance gravity and going flying away into the sunset. So far, 25 years after they jumped on the bandwagon, the whole lot of them can't get inflation to move of single atom here on Earth. Ya right. It's mathematical mythos and it's a bunch of baloney.

Are you really this obtuse? "If fusion were right, they should have no problem building a spaceship to use this and fly away into the sunset." "If fission were right, they should have no problem building a spaceship and...". How long was it from the basic ideas of atoms to the concept of fission? Can we build a fission rocket right now? How long ago was the concept of fusion developed? And where are we with even trying to create a self-sustaining fusion reaction? I don't believe anyone has even hit the break-even point yet, much less achieved any net gain in a fusion reaction. Yet there's very little doubt that this is what keeps the sun going. And we know both fusion and fission occur. Not to mention that, again, if you actually understood the model you're arguing against you'd know that there are very specific conditions required for something like an inflation field. When we have the ability to create energy densities similar to that shortly after the big bang, we might be able to create an inflationary field of some sort (assuming the model hasn't been replaced by better ones by that time). This argument is perhaps your most telling one, as it shows your complete and utter ignorance of the theories and models you're trying to argue against.

Unfortunately it is actually a relatively accurate portrayal of Guth's ideas, and they stink to high heaven. Not one single product runs on inflation. I can show you tons of products in Walmart that run on "electricity". Unfortunately "electricity" is the one forbidden topic of astronomy so they just make stuff up as they go now.

No, it's not accurate, and I know that. My post was not meant to be accurate, it was simply meant to try and illustrate a particular part of the theory (and let those with more expertise on current models make additional comments if needed). The fact that you believe it to be an accurate protrayal again shows that you are not one fo those with expertise on current models. You're just another Salemite screaming "burn the witch!" in an attempt to pull down your "adversaries" and promote your own brand of nonsense.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Gibberish.

No, your mathematical "scribble" was "gibberish". You didn't include a single unit of measurement!

I gave an argument that proves

At best case you gave me half of a mathematical you "allege" has some value. You cannot of course demonstrate this in an empirical test, it's just a math formula.

that any scalar field acts precisely in the way you were just claiming is completely impossible.

That is pure baloney! *NO* scalar or vector field acts this way. You made it up the moment you claimed a Higg's condensate didn't contain particles.

It makes no difference whatsoever what the magnitude of the potential is - the proof is completely general. It holds no matter what the "units" are.

Baloney. It doesn't hold true for Higgs bosons per cubic meter. If you disagree, demonstrate it *WITH UNITS*.

You're plainly a complete novice at the mathematics

You mean "magic math" like the formula you presented? Sure.

and physics involved here,

What "physics" are you talking about? No "physical" thing does what you claim. Light particles don't do that. Bose-Einstein condensates don't do that. Real Higgs condensates, made of real Higgs particles would not do that either. You're just making this up as you go. You certainly could never physically demonstrate it which is why I know it's a bunch of baloney.

and yet you post these arrogant diatribes against the entire field of experts.

"Experts" on inflation are about a credible as expert on astrology. Neither one of them can make their beliefs do real things with real objects in controlled experiments. You might as well claim to be an expert on magic.

They're all wrong, from Einstein to Feynman to Guth,

No, I liked Einstein, and he would have called Guth's theory just another example of a "blunder" theory that deserves no attention.

and you're correct (even though you don't understand even the most basic equations of the theory).

I know they won't work in any real life "experiment" here on Earth. I know you will not demonstrate your claim for us with real physics and real physical objects.

It's obvious to everyone reading this thread that you're a just a troll - you realize that, right? With every post you make it more obvious.

No, I'm not a troll. If you can actually physically demonstrate your claim, I'll be happy to listen to you. If however all you intend to do is make up math formulas not based on physics, but based on metaphysical nonsense, I will continue to bust your show. If you can't empirically demonstrate your claim, that's your fault. Don't blame the messenger. It's not my fault you can't produce this inflation thing you're talking about, anymore than it's my fault astrologers can't physically demonstrate their claims in controlled experiments.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm going to make one reply, then I'm done, because, first, I was trying to assiste Perpetual Student in gaining a general understanding ( a visualization concept), not to rigourously define the properties and interactions involved, and second because you obviously won't listen to any evidence or ideas that conflict with your pet theories.

That's like an astrologer chastising me because I won't listen to any evidence or ideas that conflict with my present beliefs. If you can physically demonstrate your claims, I'm happy to listen. If not, well, it's not my fault, no is it my duty to excuse the inadequacies of your theories only because they are "popular" at the moment.

No. The properties of the filed were determined by trying to find out what type of field would produce effects consistent with current observations.

It's been shown that an EM field would do.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411666

I don't need anything exotic to explain redshift.

It wasn't just "made up".

Of course it was. Nothing in nature does these things here on Earth. If they didn't just "make it up", I'm sure somebody would have created something useful with it by now and I could buy something at Walmart that used inflation. Nothing like that exists. It's entirely "made up".

It would be similar to someone finding a crater, with bits of debris scattered around it. You can look at the properties of the crater and debris (range of scatter, directionality of the crater, heat damage versus physical damage, etc) to determine the properties of what made the explosion.

That's a terrible analogy since nobody claims that meteorites are anything other than ordinary material impacting other ordinary material.

Inflation is just "made up" and has no affect on nature. Meteorites leave fragments and iridium and all sorts of physical traces.

See, but who's added mass? You're adding things into it that aren't there. The inflation field expands space, not mass.

Show me how you can expand "space" here on Earth, or is that another of those things you can't demonstrate in a lab?

Again, there is no mass. If you're going to argue against the model, you need to argue against the theory, not against your misconceptions of the model.

The universe certainly has mass. Higgs bosons are thought to have mass. How is that mass getting further away from other mass?

And you keep bringing up mass. We're talking about energy.

You're talking about invisible nonsense is what you're talking about. You can't physically show it even exists.

And mass and energy are not interchangeable in the sense you use the term.

E=MC^2 does it not?

They can be converted into each other, but they aren't equivalent in every degree.

Oh, so now your new energy field is 'special' in yet another way? Come on. Can't you see how this sounds to a skeptic?

In any case, that's more of a shorthand description (that's what those littlew " marks mean, you know..that it isn't entirely accurate). In any case, the equations show that as space expands, gravity increases within the inflated area.

But of course you can't demonstrate that space expands or that areas 'inflate' here on Earth, but I'm supposed to believe it happens "somewhere out there" where I can't possibly get to, is that it?

The sum of this increase counterbalances the energy in the inflation field. By coyunterbalances I mean that (increase in gravitational energy within the inflated area)=(increase in energy of the inflation field).

But of course you can't demonstrate any of it here on Earth.

Are you really this obtuse? "If fusion were right, they should have no problem building a spaceship to use this and fly away into the sunset."

Fusion is easily enough to physically demonstrate here on Earth. It has been done many many times now. Nobody can doubt it's a viable energy source even if we haven't mastered the technology yet to that degree. Not one experiment ever showed inflation move a single atom.

There's no point in going through the rest item by item. The bottom line is quite simple. You can't demonstrate that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination any more than an astrologer can use the observations of stars to demonstrate anything physical here on Earth. It's all in your head and it's nothing more than "woo" with a nifty math formula.

 

[The Man]

Of course it was. Nothing in nature does these things here on Earth. If they didn't just "make it up", I'm sure somebody would have created something useful with it by now and I could buy something at Walmart that used inflation. Nothing like that exists. It's entirely "made up".

So is this the extent of your “scientific method” what you can find at Wal-Mart?

No products that operate on Inflation at Wall-mart, sorry must be made up.

No products that operate on fusion at Wall-mart, sorry must be made up.

How about black holes, quasars, neutron stars, quark confinement, gluons, intermediate vector bosons, exploding double layers, coronal mass ejections, super nova, gamma ray bursts, Casimir effect, zero point energy, or antimatter surely Walt-mart has something that operates by antimatter. Nope must all be made up.

I did hear they had this one product that operated by neutrinos, but it was so weakly interacting that no one would buy it.

Fusion is easily enough to physically demonstrate here on Earth. It has been done many many times now. Nobody can doubt it's a viable energy source even if we haven't mastered the technology yet to that degree. Not one experiment ever showed inflation move a single atom.

There's no point in going through the rest item by item. The bottom line is quite simple. You can't demonstrate that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination any more than an astrologer can use the observations of stars to demonstrate anything physical here on Earth. It's all in your head and it's nothing more than "woo" with a nifty math formula.

Oh, so it is not just about what you can get at Wall-mart? We certainly can not demonstrate gravity initiated and sustained proton-proton chain fusion here on Earth, but the “nifty math” works from what we can demonstrate on earth and observe from our Sun. Hey whatever happened to all that scaling up business about what we can demonstrate on Earth, or do you think that is somehow different and not so “nifty” math. Oh, wait you do claim to use MHD and General Relativity in your PC/EU claims, too bad General Relativity is part of that “nifty math” of inflation.

 

[sol invictus]

<snip>

Whatever.

You just repeat the same lies and childish misunderstandings over and over, no matter what anyone tries to explain to you. I won't waste any more of my time on you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Whatever.

You just repeat the same lies and childish misunderstandings over and over, no matter what anyone tries to explain to you. I won't waste any more of my time on you.

Translation: I can't actually demonstrate my point, or provide units for my math formulas, so I'm running away and pretending it's all Mozina's fault I can't actually empirically demonstrate my point.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So is this the extent of your “scientific method” what you can find at Wal-Mart?

Well, put it this way: *If* any of you could empirically demonstrate inflation moves or has some affect on anything here on Earth, it's likely someone would have put the idea to good use after 25 years of so. Since none of you can show it has any affect on anything, nothing much is possible as it comes to useful products.

EM fields work and they do lots of cool things in consumer products. Inflation can't do anything to anything and therefore it will *never* show up in a consumer product.

No products that operate on Inflation at Wall-mart, sorry must be made up.

Don't you figure after 25 years someone should have been able to show that inflation has some affect on anything? You don't find that "fishy"?

No products that operate on fusion at Wall-mart, sorry must be made up.

Consumer products do run on fusion. My tax dollars have paid for thousands of very real bombs that turn fusion into energy and they cost lots of money. You can't get them at Walmart obviously, but they can be "purchased" none the less.

How about black holes, quasars, neutron stars,

How about them? As far as I know they are all applications of GR to objects in space. I'm not exactly certain any of them exist, but hey, at least I know gravity shows up here, and I'm sure it shows up in other places, at other "curvatures" as well.

quark confinement, gluons, intermediate vector bosons,

As far as I know, only the Higgs Boson remains without 'evidence' from a lab.

exploding double layers,

Huh? Those have been demonstrated in a lab for a long time. They then to blow out circuit breakers in fact, which is how Alfven started to investigate them in the first place.

coronal mass ejections,

These are simply discharge events according to Alfven.

super nova,

Something is going "boom" and blowing away stars and emitting gamma rays in the process.

gamma ray bursts,

Huh? They've been observed, including observed in the atmosphere of our own sun.

Casimir effect, antimatter

They show up in the lab. Bad analogy.

Almost everything on your list can be shown to exist in nature, unlike the inflation fart faeries that never show up in any controlled experiment.

I did hear they had this one product that operated by neutrinos, but it was so weakly interacting that no one would buy it.

Those show up in "controlled experiments'" as well. You guys have a hard time distinguishing between something that *can* be empirically demonstrated and something that cannot.

The more you continue to compare gravity to inflation, the more I know you're still missing the point entirely. Gravity is not shy around a controlled test. I don't have to trust your math to "experience" gravity in the real world. I know it exists. Whether Newton's 'explanation' is better or Einstein's math is better, or some future math related to quantum gravity eventually becomes popular, there's no doubt that gravity exists and shows up in real experiments.

Compare and contrast that now with your invisible inflation faeries who evidently farted out a whole universe but can't be bothered to move a single atom here on Earth.

 

[The Man]

Well, put it this way: *If* any of you could empirically demonstrate inflation moves or has some affect on anything here on Earth, it's likely someone would have put the idea to good use after 25 years of so. Since none of you can show it has any affect on anything, nothing much is possible as it comes to useful products.

EM fields work and they do lots of cool things in consumer products. Inflation can't do anything to anything and therefore it will *never* show up in a consumer product.

How do we demonstrate that EM fields work and get them to “do lots of cool things in consumer products”? By Appling our “nifty math” about EM fields that’s how.

Don't you figure after 25 years someone should have been able to show that inflation has some affect on anything? You don't find that "fishy"?

That is what they did, showed that it might have had an effect on the expanding universe explaining some of our current observations. The only thing I find fishy are your arguments and that is just in how they stink.

Consumer products do run on fusion. My tax dollars have paid for thousands of very real bombs that turn fusion into energy and they cost lots of money. You can't get them at Walmart obviously, but they can be "purchased" none the less.

Nope, hydrogen bombs operate by a fast fission reaction to produce the energy needed for inertial confinement deuterium-deuterium or deuterium-tritium fusion. Fusion is the end result but the bombs operate by a fast fission power source. Even Sandia National Lab’s Z Machine uses an electrically powered Z pinch to produce the X rays for inertial confinement fusion. In both cases the resulting fusion yield is limited by the power available from the energy source (Z pinch or fast fission) producing the X rays and the fusion fuel load. Producing fusion is not the same as being “run” on fusion. Power plants that produce electricity are run on a power source, well, other then electricity. When something on Earth can sustain a fusion reaction as its primary power source then you can say it is run on fusion. If you could get these fusion producing devices at Wall-mart, then you can call them “consumer products”, but they certainly do not “run on fusion”.

How about them? As far as I know they are all applications of GR to objects in space. I'm not exactly certain any of them exist, but hey, at least I know gravity show up here, and I'm sure it shows up in other places, at other "curvatures" as well.



As far as I know, only the Higg's remains without 'evidence' from a lab.



Huh? Those have been demonstrated in a lab for a long time. They then to blow out circuit breakers in fact, which is how Alfven started to investigate them in the first place.



These are simply discharge events according to Alfven.



Something is going "boom" and blowing away stars and emitting gamma rays in the process.



Huh? They've been observed, including observed in the atmosphere of our own sun.



That shows up in the lab. Bad analogy.

Almost everything on your list can be shown to exist in nature, unlike the inflation fart faeries that never show up in any controlled experiment.

Yet nothing is available at wall-mart that runs on any of those or your “fart faeries”, why is that?

Those show up in "controlled experiments'" as well. You guys have a hard time distinguishing between something that *can* be empirically and something that cannot.

Show up in controlled experiments? How? You mean people can see neutrinos? Or perhaps you mean we calculate the results based on our “nifty math” that includes neutrinos and those results agree with observations. You have a hard time understanding that in today’s world of physics empirically verified often requires some “nifty (yet verifiable) math”.

The more you continue to compare gravity to inflation, the more I know you're still missing the point entirely. Gravity is not show around a controlled test. I don't have to trust your math to "experience" gravity in the real world. I know it exists. Whether Newton's 'explanation' is better or Einstein's math is better, or some future math related to quantum gravity eventually becomes popular, there's no doubt that gravity exists and shows up in real experiments.

Compare and contrast that now with your invisible inflation faeries who evidently farted out a whole universe but can't be bothered to move a single atom here on Earth.

Who compared gravity to inflation? Oh, you mean that because they are both based on the same “nifty math” of General Relativity that a comparison could be inferred. Well that is your problem; if you want the faeries of General Relativity to favor your PC/EU claims then you will have to consider that they might fart or have farted from time to time. As the old saying goes “You can’t have Falstaff and have him thin”. You can’t have General Relativity (as we currently understand it) without the possibility of inflation, that “nifty math” you referred to is General Relativity.