Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Mmmm, fresh hypocrisy!

I'll let you argue with the other Michael Mozina that posts here:

Not only are you clueless, your debate style is less than ethical. When did I claim that was an "experiment"? Oh wait, I never did. It must be your own strawman. I think the first thing they must teach in Lambda-Gumby class is how to inappropriately make up strawman arguments and how to irrational assign the term "crank" to any and all critics of your theory.

Do you guys have any real physics to present in this thread? Do you even understand what a real "experiment" is or what a "control mechanism" might be?

 

[The Man]

What "experiment"? You mean all the other particle physics experiments that showed all the other particles of the standard particle physics theory? That was a non response to my point. LHC is intended to provide you with empirical support of the last of key particles, the Higgs. There is no such experiment for inflation, nor any link between the Higgs and inflation other than in your mind.

Actually it was directly responsive to your point, the link between the phase transition of the Higgs condensate and inflation are part of the current model. Any data obtained about or involving the detection of the Higgs boson might help to confirm, modify or refute that model, which is why the “link between the Higgs and inflation” is not just in my head but in the math and supported by most of our current observation (controlled and uncontrolled).

You keep sidestepping the point. The search for the Higgs is here on Earth in "controlled experiments". The search for inflation faeries is always based on uncontrolled events in space.

Not at all you simply keep trying to introduce it, unsuccessfully, as a road block to advancements in cosmology. When you can show how we can control the universe for “controlled experiments” on cosmological scales then your augment might have some merit. Until then we are limited to those observations of “uncontrolled events in space” combined with what we can learn from the limited “controlled experiments” here on Earth. Unfortunately it is not only the scales involved, but it is also the fact that certain processes or conditions are only evident or become dominate on scales that are simply un-producible in current labs or in some cases any possible lab. So observation or collection and analysis of data becomes the dominate factor. Let’s not forget that “controlled experiments” are just observation or the data collection and analysis of some process that one tries to have a certain degree of control over. It is in fact only that data collection and analysis that allows us to confirm (to any degree of certainty) that we did in fact have the control of the processes that we intended to have. Controlled experiments do not ensure valid observational data; however the agreement of observational data with projected models can help demonstrate the validity of the intended control of the experiment.

As long as you keep sidestepping the difference between "controlled experimentation" and "interpretation of uncontrolled observation", we will continue to talk past one another. They are not the same thing and they never will be equivalent.

I have never sidestepped “the difference between "controlled experimentation" and "interpretation of uncontrolled observation"”. In running an Engineering Laboratory for over a decade I preformed thousands of test and experiments, some were given to controlled conditions while others simply were not. Some you would not want them to be, because it was the specific lack of control over the processes that was being observed and allows one to collect the data on influences and factors not yet considered in the controlled experiments. Your ascription of the “interpretation of uncontrolled observation” is disingenuous to say the least. The process being observed might not be under our control but the observations certainly must be, uncontrolled observations tell you nothing even about processes that you can control. Controlled observations of processes not under our control help us to define the parameters that do in fact control or influence those processes, especially the ones that we can not control or at scales we can not control. Often “controlled experimentation” only becomes possible based on the controlled observations of those processes when “uncontrolled” so we can establish the controlling parameters involved.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hmm. A "relatively simple solution" that's so simple not one person has come up with a meaningful alternative explanation for in half a century.

Um, we haven't even had all that accurate measurements for half a century have we?

And you, Michael Mozina, who doesn't seem to understand what the CMBR even is

I have no idea what specific part of it that you personally find so damn appealing that you would throw away physics entirely and go with pure pseudoscience. Background radiation has been "predicted" long before BB theory became popular and it wasn't "predicted" to exist as a result of BB theory in the first place! Evidently you're willing to ignore all the other aspects of astronomy to focus on this one specific issue. That's what I don't understand.

(or for that matter what cosmology is)

This seems to be one of those things you guys do when you can't actually physically or empirically demonstrate your claim. You attack the messenger on unrelated and trivial issues in some hope of hiding the fact you can't demonstrate your claim. Somehow it must be all my fault. I'll remind you that Birkeland was the first one to "predict" a universe of "flying electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds". He "predicted" current flows in space, not simply interplanetary space, but the whole of space. At the time the "cosmology theories" claimed that the vacuum of space was pretty much empty and devoid of electrical current. Birkeland is in fact the originator of EU/PC theory. You might argue his solar model is "replaceable" under EU/PC theory, but he certainly was the first one to predict and simulate an electric universe theory. Admittedly the EU/PC theory is considered Alfven's work not Birkeland's work, but Birkeland started this process, and Alfven simply scaled it size, knowing by that time that the universe was much larger than Birkeland first realized.

is going to come up with a meaningful alternative explanation in the space of a few moments? Seriously?

When did I say "a few minutes"? I swear that if you guys didn't have the strawman thing down pat you'd be practically defenseless. I spend most of my time in these debates pointing out the strawmen in these arguments because none of you can actually demonstrate your claim, so you play word games and hope nobody notices you can't demonstrate your claim.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually it was directly responsive to your point, the link between the phase transition of the Higgs condensate and inflation are part of the current model.

You mean it's part of the current dogma that you cannot empirically demonstrate. It's a "claim" you folks make that none of you can demonstrate.

Any data obtained about or involving the detection of the Higgs boson might help to confirm, modify or refute that model,

Bull! You would have to show some physical link between a Higgs and inflation, and you forgot to ever do that. Paper claims don't count. I want to see real "physics".

which is why the “link between the Higgs and inflation” is not just in my head but in the math and supported by most of our current observation (controlled and uncontrolled).

It is "in your head" in the form of a mathematical formula that you cannot physically confirm! Gah. You guys can't even tell physics and empiricism from mathematical mythos.

Not at all you simply keep trying to introduce it, unsuccessfully, as a road block to advancements in cosmology. When you can show how we can control the universe for “controlled experiments” on cosmological scales then your augment might have some merit. Until then we are limited to those observations of “uncontrolled events in space” combined with what we can learn from the limited “controlled experiments” here on Earth.

The only thing you'll ever learn about inflation in a "real experiment" here on Earth is that it's a giant no show, like magic faeries, and invisible unicorns. It's a math myth, a lot like numerology.

Unfortunately it is not only the scales involved, but it is also the fact that certain processes or conditions are only evident or become dominate on scales that are simply un-producible in current labs or in some cases any possible lab.

You can't "scale" something that doesn't exist! You're tying to scale magic monkey based on your claim that they only show up "out there somewhere". Come on. You can't scale something that you can't demonstrate to exist in the first place.

So observation or collection and analysis of data becomes the dominate factor.

I'll grant you that observations can be used to separate valid mathematical models from ones that don't work, but *only* if you stick to known forces/curvatures of nature! You can't make up magic stuff and slap it into a math formula related and start pointing at the sky looking for verification of your magic stuff.

Let’s not forget that “controlled experiments” are just observation or the data collection and analysis of some process that one tries to have a certain degree of control over.

Those "control mechanisms" allow us to determine the actual "cause", whereas your uncontrolled observation of invisible monkeys can't be verified based on a functional math formula. The problem here is simple. You guys can't demonstrate that inflation has any affect on the observation of redshift. Period. It's all numerology math that has no value whatsoever on Earth because inflation is evidently gone by now and we therefore will *never* be able to "experiment" with it in *any* condition. It's like the ultimate act of "faith". I have to simply accept the idea that magic inflation faeries farted out a whole universe and they are gone now, so I can't ever see them or see them do anything today. If that isn't a "religion", what is?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's time for some semantics.

No, it's time for a real "experiment" with real "control mechanisms" that demonstrate that inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination. If you can't demonstrate your math is in any way related to physical affects on Earth, then I have every scientific reason to reject your claim and to "lack belief" that it has any affect on anything, anywhere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks for the swift response.

However, you didn't answer the question I asked, which was "Are you prepared to go through this "whopper" in detail, to see just how well it accounts for all directly relevant astronomical observations?"

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Sure, I'll give it shot. I don't profess to be the author of the paper mind you, but I'll be happy to defend his work to the best of my ability.

On the theory side, perhaps I was too quick off the mark in assuming you'd already spotted at least one fatal flaw; never mind, several others have (collectively) pointed out more than one such flaw, so there's no need to take up more server space discussing them, is there.

Of course there's a reason to discuss these concerns, but you didn't instantly give up your belief in inflation just because I pointed out some problems in your theory did you? Do you expect me to reject his whole work in a couple of posts only because *you* think that you have found some problem in one of his papers?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sure you can. You forget time dilation, another lab-verified phenomenon which contributes to redshift. When you take time dilation into account, you can obtain arbitrarily large redshifts. And again, I'm not even resorting to expanding space, I'm only dealing with things (doppler shift and time dilation) which have been verified experimentally right here on earth.

But see, I don't have any problem with you using *any* type of redshift that you can physically verify. It's not that I reject *all* possible mainstream explanations of the redshift phenomenon, just the ones they can't actually demonstrate. I will admit again for the record that Ari's solution is no "better" than "space expansion" in that respect, but it's not any worse either, and it's based on KNOWN forces of nature, not new ones that cannot ever be demonstrate on Earth.

This has already been pointed out to you: it won't blur images or spectral lines. Compton scattering will.

Sure, but over these distances, so what? An image of a distant galaxy is bound to be a little bit "blurred" by lots of scattering effects. We observe these scattering effects in satellite images of our own sun. Over these distances however, I see no evidence that such an effect would result in noticeable changes to the images. You're just sort of handwaving that around and expecting me to buy it just because you say it's true.

Any tired light process which doesn't violate conservation of energy and momentum will. But again, we don't need to resort to expanding space: all we need do is acknowledge that redshifts mean objects are moving away from each other.

Most light that "scatters' will simply never reach Earth, it won't necessarily make the image more "blurry". It will have some affect on the total amount of light that reaches us, but I personally believe that part of the reason the mainstream keeps grossly underestimating the mass of a galaxy.

You are forgetting, once again, that inflation does not mean any expansion of space.

Ya, we have to keep these metaphysical fudge factors separate and clear.

Can you accept that yet, or are you still in denial?

That's like me saying "Ari's papers demonstrate that no movement occurs. Do you accept it or are you still in denial? The fact you hand me a math formula does not mean it's accurate. Which of us in in denial here if I'm personally willing to let you use demonstrated redshift phenomenon, and all I reject is the one's you cannot demonstrate? If you can't physically demonstrate your claims, why am I obligated to accept them or be accused of being "in denial"?

 

[Skwinty]

Interesting article on Universe Today.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/16/inflation-theory-takes-a-little-kick-in-the-pants/


Quote from above article
"This is all fairly confusing, but the sweetened condensed version is that if gravitational radiation is ever detected, that event won't necessarily verify inflation theory. Therefore, whether inflation theory can ever be confirmed remains to be seen."

What other experiments could confirm Inflation.

 

[Perpetual Student]

# The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602500

.

The link provided does not appear to provide any evidence (only a bare statement) to counter the time dilation evidence of supernovae decay. When I first became aware of these supernovae decay observations, they appeared to provide strong evidence of cosmological expansion. I have yet to see a good alternative explanation. Can you provide anything more convincing?

For the same reason perpetual motion machines are impossible. The 2nd law says the entropy is increasing, and every star that forms generates a huge amount of entropy and uses up some of the available free energy. In our universe (I can't speak for yours), after a few more stellar generations all the available material for star formation will be used up, the remaining stars will burn out, and the universe will be a cold and dead place.

The details of the future evolution of the stellar population follow from understood principles of stellar dynamics. But even if you ignore those, the 2nd law is one of the most basic, well tested, and thoroughly understood laws of physics we have. An eternal universe which is still forming stars today violates it - it is a perpetual motion machine.

So there you have it - the theories you favor rely on wildly speculative mechanisms for redshift that have never been empirically demonstrated in any context (on the contrary, they are impossible according to all the data we have), violate the fundamental laws of physics (which have massive empirical support - there's a reason they're called "laws"), and are inconsistent with general relativity (which one of the other yous said he believed in), and the theory you claim is garbage and nonsense relies only on empirically and theoretically almost certain
phenomena like Doppler shift and general relativity.

Oh and incidentally, how does your eternal universe theory get around Olber's paradox? ^{s. i.}

Some very strong points there! How would any steady state theory deal with these problems?

 

[Ziggurat]

But see, I don't have any problem with you using *any* type of redshift that you can physically verify.

Then you shouldn't have any problem with the conclusion that galaxies are all moving away from each other at large length scales. Don't believe in expanding space, that's fine: but the conclusion that distant galaxies are moving away faster than nearby galaxies is still inescapable, based (again) only on what can be (and has been) verified on earth.

Sure, but over these distances, so what?

So intrinsic blurring should be related to redshift, but it isn't. The energy spectra of distant galaxies is still nice and sharp.

Over these distances however, I see no evidence that such an effect would result in noticeable changes to the images.

Have you bothered to try to find out how much blurring you should expect? And again: it's not simply the spatial resolution which should get blurred. More importantly, the energy spectra should get blurred. But it doesn't.

Most light that "scatters' will simply never reach Earth

And hence won't get picked up as a redshift. But lots of light is reaching earth with large red shifts, which (according to the theory you linked to) means it scattered many times. Somehow, it either reaches us without showing any signs of any sort of random spread, or it doesn't reach us at all. Every photon from any one source gets redshifted by exactly the same amount, no spread in energy loss at all. Sorry, but that's grade-A bull****. Scattering doesn't work that way. And we CAN verify that in lab.

 

[sol invictus]

His one claim about Higgs condensates not being composed of particles has already been thoroughly debunked.

You do realize that every person reading this knows you're lying, right? And that every time you say something like that you destroy what tiny morsel of credibility you have left?

His claim was related to particles per volume and he can't support his claim. When asked for any sort of units, he ran like hell.

No, I explained you you that the units are irrelevant. Your question was incoherent anyway - what did you want the units of? You want to know what the units of a scalar potential are? They're energy density (joules per cubic meter, for example). Did you want to know what the numerical magnitude of the Higgs potential is in those units? If so, ask - although it's totally irrelevant to the question of whether scalar potential energy densities redshift during expansion.

Not only are you clueless, your debate style is less than ethical. When did I claim that was an "experiment"?

Oh, I see - so now you're saying that doesn't constitute good evidence. So in that case the theory of dinosaur extinction, and more generally the evolutionary history of life on earth, is all "faerie farts" and nonsense? Odd, that's not what the other other MM was saying... looks like yet another flipflop to me!

Dizzy yet?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You do realize that every person reading this knows you're lying, right?

I realize that anyone who knows anything about particle physics and can read knows that you lied what you said that a Higgs condensate was not composed of particles and that your argument falls apart from there. If they didn't follow it, oh well, it's no skin off my nose. I know you're full of it. No known vector or scalar field in nature retains near constant density over exponential increases in volume, not light, not atomic condensates, not Higgs condensates. You're blowing smoke and that much is damn obvious from your statements, not to mention the fact you could *never* demonstrate your claim.

And that every time you say something like that you destroy what tiny morsel of credibility you have left?

You lost credibility with me the moment you claimed that the Higgs condensate was not composed of particles. From there is was a pathetic attempt to justify your nonsense and if others had not tried to come to your rescue you would have been crucified instantly. Only the distractions may have made a few folks actually believe your original claim was pure BS.

No, I explained you you that the units are irrelevant.

And I've explained why they *are* relevant. I've also explained why a real PHYSICAL DEMONSTRATION is "relevant. You can't even provide units of measurement consistent with your claim (Higgs particles/cubic meter), and I know damn well you will *never* physically demonstrate your claim and so does everyone else here.

Your question was incoherent anyway - what did you want the units of?

You claimed a Higgs condensate would retain near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. The logical unit of measurement for such a claim would be "Higgs bosons/cubic meter". Let's *at least* see you provide at units of measurement consistent with your claim to that half*ssed formula of yours.

No dodging, no weaving, lets see your math *and the units of actual physics*.

 

[sol invictus]

<angry and incoherent nonsense snipped>

You claimed a Higgs condensate would retain near constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. The logical unit of measurement for such a claim would be "Higgs bosons/cubic meter". Let's *at least* see you provide at units of measurement consistent with your claim to that half*ssed formula of yours.

No dodging, no weaving, lets see your math *and the units of actual physics*.

The last part is incoherent too, but wth - let's see how much entertainment you can provide. If you look e.g. here, you'll see the action for the Higgs particle. Notice that V(|\phi|)? That's the potential energy functional for the Higgs field. It has units of energy per volume - so Joules/m^3 for example (NOT number density). In the condensed phase \phi takes a constant value (called a "vacuum expectation value", or vev) at a minimum of V.

What I proved earlier is that when you couple that field to gravity (as you must according to general relativity) that potential energy density does not change when the universe expands if the field \phi is constant, and moreover that \phi=C for some constant C is a solution to the equations if the V'(C)=0 and the metric is of Robertson-Walker form (i.e. an expanding universe).

Translated, that means that when scalar fields sit at a local minimum of their potentials, their potential energy acts just like a cosmological constant or vacuum energy - i.e. the energy density is constant and independent of the expansion or contraction of space.

Now, MM - what was your question about units, again?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks for the swift response.

However, you didn't answer the question I asked, which was "Are you prepared to go through this "whopper" in detail, to see just how well it accounts for all directly relevant astronomical observations?"

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Sure, I'll give it shot. I don't profess to be the author of the paper mind you, but I'll be happy to defend his work to the best of my ability.

[...]

Again, thanks for the swift response.

First, I assume you got the wrong Ari Brynjolfsson paper, in your earlier post (the one you provided a link to is only 19 pages long, not 95). No worries, I'll assume that you mean the set of Ari Brynjolfsson papers on 'plasma redshift', unless you tell us all otherwise.

Here's a few of the relevant observations, off the top of my head:

* Scranton et al.'s 2005 paper on weak gravitational lensing of quasars in the SDSS DR3 (link is to the arXiv preprint)

* the neutrino version of Olbers' paradox (especially one filled with stars that shine by the Michael Mozina/O. Manuel mechanism)

* quasar and quasar host galaxy redshifts are the same

* angular smearing of objects not observed, out to z ~6, across the whole EM spectrum (though this is not a particularly stringent test for the gamma ray region)

* ditto, wrt line widths

* existence of the Gunn-Peterson trough

* CMB temperature higher at high z (than locally)

* z-dependent AGN/quasar volume density (under AB's cosmology, MM's, or LCDM models)

* complete lack of GRBs with redshifts >~7

* disappearance of the "δz′_MW ≈ 0.00095" signal in the much larger databases of SNe Ia than AB used, back in 2003/4

* heating of the IGM in rich clusters by AGN jets (leaves nowhere for AB's mechanism to dump its energy).

No doubt there's more, but that should get you started ... pick one and give us an 'AB plasma redshift/cosmology' explanation.

 

[temporalillusion]

His one claim about Higgs condensates not being composed of particles has already been thoroughly debunked.

I haven't seen where. You do understand that the same word can have multiple definitions?

His claim was related to particles per volume and he can't support his claim. When asked for any sort of units, he ran like hell.

No his claim wasn't, you still don't understand what he's referring to there when he said condensate. Different use of the word than a condensate made up of atoms.

It's in JOULES! Gah. I won't do these one by one.

Is it now? What if I measure mass in dead cats? What if I measure the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight? Is it still in joules?

I care that you aren't just making things up as you go, and knowing what units are in use is typical in any calculation. Get over it. I didn't ask for the moon, just the units of measurement.

Units are important if you are actually making a calculation to come up with a result, but if you are using the formula to demonstrate a relationship or whatever then the units don't matter.

The area of a circle is equal to the square of the radius times pie, regardless of what units I use. Cubits, cm, miles, AU, lengths of string, whatever. Agreed?

Your participation in this thread takes you out of the role of "innocent bystander" and puts you squarely in the roll of 'peanut gallery commentator'. The "train wreck" is watching you all try to avoid the fact you can't physically demonstrate inflation, so you're attempting to attack the messenger. How predictable.

You can't physically demonstrate Pluto exists either. What's your point?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I haven't seen where. You do understand that the same word can have multiple definitions?

Sure, but the term Higgs condensate relates to a collection of Higgs particles. It's not a magic thingy, just a collection of particles.

No his claim wasn't, you still don't understand what he's referring to there when he said condensate. Different use of the word than a condensate made up of atoms.

The only difference is that it's made up of Higgs particles.

Is it now? What if I measure mass in dead cats? What if I measure the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight? Is it still in joules?

This is the kind of nonsense you guys come up with instead of noting you can't demonstrate your claims empirically. It's all tangents and weird analogies.

Units are important if you are actually making a calculation to come up with a result, but if you are using the formula to demonstrate a relationship or whatever then the units don't matter.

If one claims that a Higgs condensate will undergo exponential increases in volume and experience no change in density, the units are *critically important* and damn obvious too. What's the problem?

You can't physically demonstrate Pluto exists either. What's your point?

That's not true. I can see it emit light and track it in orbit. What's your point?

 

[ben m]

I realize that anyone who knows anything about particle physics and can read knows that you lied what you said that a Higgs condensate was not composed of particles

I know particle physics. I can read. Sol was right and you are wrong. The Higgs condensate, like the inflaton condensate, is not composed of Higgs particles but rather is "composed of" a vacuum expectation value.

This is perfectly valid quantum field theory, MM, and it uses exact same quantum field theory analysis tools that work perfectly well in QED, QCD, electroweak theory, and a raft of condensed matter problems. Do you want to argue that those tools are broken? Do you want to argue that we're misapplying them? Do you want to argue that quantum mechanics is invalid or immune to scientific inquiry? No?

You are, in fact, making two utterly contradictory arguments:

• We shouldn't give too much credence to the inflation hypothesis because (something about the scientific method) demands extraordinary laboratory-based proof beyond a reasonable doubt, your honor.
• Inflation isn't even a valid hypothesis because OMG the units are wrong you morons

 

[Michael Mozina]

Interesting article on Universe Today.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/16/inflation-theory-takes-a-little-kick-in-the-pants/


Quote from above article
"This is all fairly confusing, but the sweetened condensed version is that if gravitational radiation is ever detected, that event won't necessarily verify inflation theory. Therefore, whether inflation theory can ever be confirmed remains to be seen."

In other words they can't even decide if their "tests" (lacking any control mechanism of any sort) are even capable of verifying or falsifying the claim. The answer it obviously, "no", a pure observation cannot falsify or verify the existence of inflation. It was never shown to even exist in nature!

What other experiments could confirm Inflation.

None. This was not even an actual "experiment", it was simply a realization that inflation isn't the only thing that can generate specific observations that were once claimed to be the exclusive domain of inflation.

Like I said, inflation is utterly useless at 'predicting' anything useful whatsoever. It's numerology and pointless, untestable numerology at that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure, but the term Higgs condensate relates to a collection of Higgs particles.

No, it doesn't. You found one source aimed at a general audience which (incorrectly) referred to it as such in order to simplify their explanation. But it's just not true. Your repeated insistence on something which is false, and which everyone but you seems to understand is false, is just making you look silly.

It's not a magic thingy

Correct: it's a field. If I have an electric field of 1 Volt/meter, what's the photon density of that field? It's a nonsensical question. Assigning a number density of Higgs particles to the Higgs field is likewise nonsensical.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I know particle physics. I can read. Sol was right and you are wrong. The Higgs condensate, like the inflaton condensate, is not composed of Higgs particles but rather is "composed of" a vacuum expectation value.

Nope. This is exactly why math alone doesn't cut it. Nothing is composed of an "expectation value". Everything that is "real" is a mass object and/or has a tangible effect on objects of mass. You're confusing a useful QM function about randomness with real physical objects. The Higgs condensate is simply a collection of Higgs particles that can pick up energy or not. They can "spread out" and become less dense too just like any particle condensate. It's not a magic creation field of infinite Higgs bosons. The condensate is *COMPOSED OF* Higg's Bosons.

The tools are not "broken" by the way, you're simply "misapplying them" in damn obvious ways.

You are, in fact, making two utterly contradictory arguments:
We shouldn't give too much credence to the inflation hypothesis because (something about the scientific method) demands extraordinary laboratory-based proof beyond a reasonable doubt, your honor.

How is that any different than for any other branch of science, or did you just expect me to hand you a license to make stuff up?

Inflation isn't even a valid hypothesis because OMG the units are wrong you morons

Honestly, is strawman creation part of your curriculum when they stuff your head full of Lambda-faeries?

His claim is BS because he can't provide units (I think he actually has done so now but I haven't read through is last post yet) that demonstrate that a Higgs condensate will expand exponentially and retain near constant density. It's never going to happen. It will definitely never happen here on Earth in a lab in a controlled experiment.