Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[temporalillusion]

Can you discuss without the hyperbole? Ever? It makes it very difficult to sift through to the actual meat you know.

People think things for a reason, you refuse to acknowledge that and simply blast away without trying to understand what the other person is saying. Very frustrating.

There was also that little problem about an apparent law of physics being violated. We really only had two options to choose from. Throw out a known and accepted law of physics or look for a missing particle. Notice they didn't just sit at a computer terminal and whip up some math? They used actual "hardware" to build real "experiments" with "real control mechanisms".

The neutrino came out of math, the prediction was theory first, then observation. Fermi developed a theory of radioactivity, prompted by the observation you mention but that wasn't the only part of the theory.

Sure. Then again I can't start with the premise that faeries did it and then build math formulas and point at the sky with my faerie math. That isn't "isolating variables", that is "making up the variables as you go with a preconceived opinion that can never be falsified by point at the sky exercises, especially if I keep changing my faerie math as I go!

Reel it in a notch or two, sheesh.

What you describe is exactly what Newton did. Newton's theory of gravity had aspects that weren't based on any empirical experiments that he could do in a lab.

I want a demonstration that their theory works in the real world. If someone came to my door selling me something I would at least want to see it work before I would buy it, wouldn't you?

The universe is the real world. What says there cannot be forces and phenomenon that can never be demonstrated in a lab we can construct? Your requirement puts the universe in a box that you define arbitrarily.

The same way they discovered and detected neutrinos. That was "by the book" empirical physics. Why should astronomers who worship inflation get a free pass?

That doesn't answer the question. How would you ever discover something new that couldn't be detected in the lab?

No, I'm saying that it's entirely possible as in the case of the neutrino. Nobody just took a "wild guess". It was all done via the experimental methods outlined in that paper on the scientific method.

I never said they guessed, they made a theory that described the observations (a theory which described other phenomenon as well). But I'm not asking about observations in the lab I asked if it was impossible to discover something that couldn't be detected in a lab. You didn't answer.

How would you ever discover something new that couldn't be detected in the lab? Are you saying that that is categorically impossible?

Faerie math cannot be verified using pure observation of distant objects. "Faeries did it and here is the math to demonstrate it" won't cut it. I simply want to see the faeries actually do something here on Earth first before I'll believe they do something to objects out in deep space, or once a long time ago they did something to objects in space. In this case it is actually "dead faerie math" and the faeries are all gone now so nobody can ever prove they do not exist!

You didn't answer my question though. So your point is that science cannot be done using pure observation alone? There's no way to do science on something without a controlled experiment?

Common descent can't be demonstrated in a controlled experiment.

That's how it will go down.

Well I wish you all the best with that, it will be interesting to see.

 

[temporalillusion]

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

I don't think that source was intended to be an complete comrehensive summary of every facet of the scientific process.

Yes experiments must be done, but your definition of an experiment is limited to a lab. You leave out natural experiments, field experiments, and observational studies.

 

[Tubbythin]

Irrelevant to my point.

True, but also irrelevant to my point.

Not a good sign.

Even worse!

It is not intended to offer an alternative.

Also irrelevant.
I believe the point is that there are some knowledgeable people out there who are not convinced by the current consensus and who feel they are not given fair treatment. Is that true or not?

Is it true that there are some people who feel they are not given fair treatment. Of course. Should they be taken seriously? Well if they stopped with the anti-mainstream conspiracy theories and came up with an alternative paradigm that matched at least as many observations as the current one then they might have a point. But they haven't. Instead they've resorted to the creationist approach: yell about not being heard and grossly misrepresent the science they object to.
If the examples offered by MM are representative they're not even close. The alternative he offered for the CMBR was a prime example. Not only was it not even close, he was completely incapable of understanding just how badly wrong it was. He seemed to lack any sort of grasp of some pretty fundamental physics.
MM also seems completely incapable of subjecting his preffered theories to the same rigourous levels of proof that he demands of the "mainstream". Take his alternative explanation for cosmological redshift. After demanding inflation be testable in a lab (why should anyone take him seriously after that?) he was quite happy to accept a theory in which a graviton decays into a photon. Not only has the decay never been observed, the graviton itself never has. The hypocracy in his arguments beggars belief.
Now it may be that the current cosmological paradigm is wrong. The way to bring it down though is through observation, experiment and actually bothering to come up with a better theory. Not through (going by MM's modus operandi here) ignorance, lies and hypocracy.

 

[Reality Check]

Like those *dark flows*.

Why wouldn't those "Dark flows" falsify inflation once and for all? If it will not falsify inflation theory, what will?

I am fairly sure that dark flows are in fact evidence of the inflationary period of the universe. At least that is how I interpret the following from the Wikipedia article:

The authors suggest that the motion may be a remnant of the influence of no-longer-visible regions of the universe prior to inflation. Telescopes cannot see events earlier than about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe became transparent; this corresponds to the particle horizon at a distance of about 46 billion (4.6×1010) light years. Since the matter causing the net motion in this proposal is outside this range, it would in a certain sense be outside our visible universe; however, it would still be in our past light cone.

Perhaps someone who knows more about dark flows could comment.

It is easy to falsify inflation theory - just use the criteria that falsifies any scientific theory. Inflation makes predictions. If the predictions do not fit observations then inflation is falsified.

 

[Dancing David]

Lets us try again:

1. How do you explain the rotation curves of galaxies and other objects? (The reason that dark matter is hypothisized)
2. How do you explain the coherent set of data explained by the 'cosmological redshift' hypothesis? (It is not just a simple one line observation, it is a rather large body of evidence.)
3. If you have a cohehernt explanation for 2, how do you explain the acceleartion in 'cosmological redshift'?

These are the reasons that the 'dark energy' and the 'dark matter' hypothesis exist.

4. What theories do you have that explain them?

I think the double standard where you say neutron star and nutrinos exist but that a hypothesis like inflation , DM or DE can't just shows a mentality that is cherry picking.

5. What model explains the data better?

 

[sol invictus]

Perhaps someone who knows more about dark flows could comment.

At this point it's impossible to tell. First off, the result is probably systematic error. As I said before it's extremely difficult to remove the effect of coherent motions of galaxy clusters from this.

But let's say it's real - that if you average the peculiar velocities of clusters over our entire Hubble volume, you get a non-zero result. As far as I can see that immediately falsifies any theory of inflation which lasted even a few more than the absolute minimum number of e-foldings necessary to explain horizon and flatness. And depending on the magnitude of the velocity, it could falsify even minimal inflation too. Without doing a careful analysis I don't know where that cross-over point is, but there certainly is one - and this is one of an infinite number of observations we could make which would falsify inflation.

It is easy to falsify inflation theory - just use the criteria that falsifies any scientific theory. Inflation makes predictions. If the predictions do not fit observations then inflation is falsified.

Yes, that's absolutely right. Yet another of MM's inexhaustible supply of complete self-contradictions is that he screams about how inflation isn't scientific and can't be tested, and then turns around and rants about how it's already been falsified by dark flows. I don't think I've ever seen any poster reach quite that level of blatant hypocrisy. In fact at this level it's more like schizophrenia than hypocrisy.

 

[Dancing David]

Perpetual Student,

Yes it is possible for an orthodoxy to arise.

However when it comes to cosmology and physics there is a portion of the picture that you do not see in this thread.

The one where an alternative theory is presented, a piece of the puzzle is presented that seems to contradict this alternate theory. The proponent of the alternate does not modify the theory or explain how it works to meet the evidence. Or they change the topic rapidly.

Later the same person brings up the same alternate theory, the evidence is mentioned again, but then the proponent screams 'Orthodoxy and Repression!' and does not address the flaw in the theory.

Alternatives exist all the time, and they are explored all the time (something that some people forget). The issue is do they explain the data and offer a theory that matches the data or not.

Here in this thread we have a person who consistently ignores a number of issues
-the black body spectrum of the CMB
-the rotation curves of galaxies
-the data that supports the hypothesis of the BBE
-the data that supports the hypothesis of the 'cosmological redshift'
-the data that supports the hypothesis of the 'acceleration of the cosmological redshift'

Now heer is the thing , these issues have been discussed here before and very cogent discussion have occured about what the data is and why many of these alternatives seem to contradict the evidence, they have been discussed rationaly when the case is presented soemwhat calmly.

This is not the case with MM, he has jumped to the political philospohical debate almost right away.

There are strong reasons that Halton Arp's theory does not match the data, yet MM will not address them.
There are strong reasons thate ach of the 'alternate redshift' theories will not match the data, he refuses to address.

If you wish to see what I mean on a different topic search the forum for Hypershphere of the Present, there are two threads about relativity that are rather amazing, and you will see what I mean about calm discussion.

Please note that MM displays a number of hit and run tactics, that hed oes not address specific direct questions and that the level of hyperbole is very high.

The BBE theory is that, it is a theory, we can not ever know what happened before the BBE, to say that it is not a valid theory based upon that is a philospohical arguement, it does explain most of the data we have.

 

[Perpetual Student]

MM also seems completely incapable of subjecting his preffered theories to the same rigourous levels of proof that he demands of the "mainstream". Take his alternative explanation for cosmological redshift. After demanding inflation be testable in a lab (why should anyone take him seriously after that?) he was quite happy to accept a theory in which a graviton decays into a photon. Not only has the decay never been observed, the graviton itself never has.

Tough to argue with that!

 

[Skwinty]

By your $50 wal mart lab standard of discovery, Pluto would have never been discovered.

Please describe how you would have discovered Pluto in the lab with $50 worth of stuff from wal mart?

Please explain the difference between making an observation in the lab and making an observation in an observatory.
I'm sure you can buy a $50 telescope at Walmart and discover Venus , Jupiter etc.

 

[Skwinty]

I think this is a true reflection of this whole issue. The possibility exists that the mainstream is wrong, but I have no doubt that when better evidence is presented, they will make the neccesary adjustments.
IMO, this thread is moving towards anarchistic theory of knowledge in Feyerabend's "Against Method" and belongs in the religion and philosophy section.


Peebles
This is an exciting time for cosmologists: findings are pouring in, ideas are bubbling up, and research to test those ideas is simmering away. But it is also a confusing time. All the ideas under discussion cannot possibly be right; they are not even consistent with one another. How is one to judge the progress? Here is how I go about it.
For all the talk of overturned theories, cosmologists have firmly established the foundations of our field. Over the past 70 years we have gathered abundant evidence that our universe is expanding and cooling. First, the light from distant galaxies is shifted toward the red, as it should be if space is expanding and galaxies are pulled away from one another. Second, a sea of thermal radiation fills space, as it should if space used to be denser and hotter. Third, the universe contains large amounts of deuterium and helium, as it should if temperatures were once much higher. Fourth, distant galaxies, seen as they were in the past because of light's travel time, look distinctly younger, as they should if they are closer to the time when no galaxies existed. Finally, the curvature of spacetime seems to be related to the material content of the universe, as it should be if the universe is expanding according to the predictions of Einstein's gravity theory, the general theory of relativity.

ETA
He is not saying that "Space" is expanding

 

[Michael Mozina]

Is it true that there are some people who feel they are not given fair treatment. Of course. Should they be taken seriously? Well if they stopped with the anti-mainstream conspiracy theories and came up with an alternative paradigm that matched at least as many observations as the current one then they might have a point.

The problem with that concept is that you expect me to agree with all of your "assumptions", both in terms of movement and also in terms of what is considered "important". I could frankly not care less about developing an entire creation story just to complete with mainstream theory. I'm far more interested in events inside our solar system, like solar wind, CME's, things like that. These are the things where EU/PC theory can make useful and testable "predictions" and none of them are simply "made up". The ideas work in a lab.

But they haven't.

Why should they attempt to compete with "magic math"? It's impossible to play that game and win. In PC/EU theory one tends to be focused on actual physics and what works in a lab. I don't have the luxury you do to just "make up" stuff as I go and fudge the numbers when they don't fit by tweaking another metaphysical variable.

How about explaining something *useful* with your formulas? How about "predicting" something useful about what happens inside the solar system? Why choose only one set of observations to attempt to match and ignore everything else?

Instead they've resorted to the creationist approach: yell about not being heard and grossly misrepresent the science they object to.

You have that exactly backwards. You are the one telling me about a creation event caused by your beloved Nereid. You can't justify your timelines any better than any other creation event without creating "superpowers" to assign to you beloved dead deity. The only real difference between you creation story and any other creation story is that your deity is dead, whereas most seem to assume the creator lives. Other than this, you creation mythos is no different from any other mythos. You have superluminal expansion happening, deities that are unfalsifyable, etc.

Now I'm supposed to just "give up" on a theory that I know works in a lab and explains things your dead Nereid inflation deity cult cannot explain because you're fixated on something you can't even demonstrate to begin with in terms of distant observation you keep attributing to something that doesn't even exist.

MM also seems completely incapable of subjecting his preffered theories to the same rigourous levels of proof that he demands of the "mainstream".

That is not so. I don't find *any* of the redshift arguments overly compelling and I'm more interested in solar system activity. I therefore am not particularly attached to any redshift "explanation" to the point I would give up empirical physics to join a dead deity cult.

Not through (going by MM's modus operandi here) ignorance, lies and hypocracy.

Bull. The "truth" is that your inflation deity is dead. It can't be tested. Your faith in inflation is useless in helping us predict the outcome of any real experiment. In truth you can't empirically demonstrate the existence of your deity. You're mad at the messenger like any religious "believer" because I won't bow down and have faith in a dead and non existent thing. The only "lies" being told is that inflation did anything. The only lies that are being told is that "dark energy" moves the universe. These things are illusions of your mind, nothing more.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Tough to argue with that!

The part he/she is missing is that I'm not emotionally or intellectually attached to any of the redshift "solutions" I've seen to date. The mainstream solution requires pure faith in something they simply fabricated in the first place and that is evidently dead now. The alternative explanations tend be based on things that actually exist in nature, or at least might be tested in some physical way. IMO that makes them "better" than a dead deity.

The mainstream would love me to attempt to compete with their inflation deity, but of course that is pointless. No one can compete with a supernatural deity who's abilities change with every observation that would normally have falsified any other scientific model. In the case of the inflation deity, she simply gets new superpowers of "dark energy" and away they go again......

I'm *way* (a lot) more interested in being able to explain events inside of our solar system. I'm comfortable that EU/PC theory is based entirely upon pure empirical physics and it has useful predictive value as it relates to events inside the solar system.

The mainstream is so fixated on their dead deity and they are so afraid of EU theory that they refuse to embrace any part of it for fear that their whole show will start to fall apart. Real physical forces are driving that solar wind they can't explain. It's not "inflation" or "dark energy". It's *electricity* and charge separation/attraction that causes the solar wind to accelerate. I know this because I've seen it demonstrated in a lab by a guy from 100 years ago. It took the mainstream 60 years to give up their faith in Chapman's math formulas and recognize the usefulness of Birkeland's auroral theories. At the rate they are going it will take them 100 more years to figure out solar wind. I'll be dead by then. Why should I wait around for them to get with the program only because they love their dead deity? They now want to judge everything in science based on a creation event they can't justify without simply "making up" properties that they assigned to their deity, just like any other religious cult! The worst part is that they teach this brand of "faith" in school and call it "science".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Perpetual Student,

Yes it is possible for an orthodoxy to arise.

However when it comes to cosmology and physics there is a portion of the picture that you do not see in this thread.

The one where an alternative theory is presented, a piece of the puzzle is presented that seems to contradict this alternate theory. The proponent of the alternate does not modify the theory or explain how it works to meet the evidence. Or they change the topic rapidly.

That is because you all fixate on explaining the redshift phenomenon and *assume* the inflation deity theory is correct *unless* someone does a better job postdicting these specific events. Unless one is willing to simply "create new forces of nature" like Guth, that is not likely to happen. I'm sure that the "real" explanation is rather complicated and it will take time to understand. That doesn't make your dead deity theory "right" by default!

Later the same person brings up the same alternate theory, the evidence is mentioned again, but then the proponent screams 'Orthodoxy and Repression!' and does not address the flaw in the theory.

How about the flaws in your theories? How come you guys can't explain solar wind acceleration, coronal loops, jets, sustained aurora? How about those flaws? How come you get to pick what is "important" in a cosmology theory in the first place? Who gets to decide which observations are most important?

This is not the case with MM, he has jumped to the political philospohical debate almost right away.

No, your theory did that. If your theory was based on a concept that you could empirically demonstrate this thread would have ended in one rebuttal. The only reason it's "philosophical" is because you can't empirically demonstrate your dead deity! That's the only reason.

There are strong reasons that Halton Arp's theory does not match the data, yet MM will not address them.

That reason is because I'm not really interested in redshift in the first place, certainly not to the degree that the mainstream is interested in that one issue. Arp has demonstrated many holes in your theory and you ignored them all. You'll continue to ignore the failures of you theory and invent new properties like DE to fill in the gaps every time your theory fails to "predict" anything useful.

There are strong reasons thate ach of the 'alternate redshift' theories will not match the data, he refuses to address.

That does not mean I'm immediately obligated to "make up" something just to do a curve fitting exercise! Gah. so what? You theory doesn't match predictions either, that's why you stuffed it full of DE. It doesn't match that "dark flow" either, and you just ignore it!

The "hyperbole" is useful to demonstrate my point. Your whole entire belief system is based upon the idea that a "made up" deity is better than pure physics because somehow it gives you comfort to believe you have the whole universe figured out to the last few centimeters and the last few 100,000 years or so. I have no such emotional need. I want to understand why the sun does with it does. I want to understand how our solar system functions. I'm not interested in *any* creation event that begins by assigning a deity a superpower or two or three and then goes from there. That is not "science", that is "religion".

 

[Michael Mozina]

At this point it's impossible to tell. First off, the result is probably systematic error.

In other words, your dogma *must* be right so the observation must be wrong. Now that behavior is the definition of blind faith. Nothing, no new observation, no new piece of information could ever falsify inflation. When the mainstream realize the universe wasn't slowing down as "predicted", they simply threw in another metaphysical entity and create dark energy. Those movements and flows are not congruent with your theory, so of course there must be something wrong with them..... Hoy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I am fairly sure that dark flows are in fact evidence of the inflationary period of the universe. At least that is how I interpret the following from the Wikipedia article:

Perhaps someone who knows more about dark flows could comment.

It is easy to falsify inflation theory - just use the criteria that falsifies any scientific theory. Inflation makes predictions. If the predictions do not fit observations then inflation is falsified.

Bull. When the predictions don't fit the observation you just tinker with the variables some more, come up with "hairy inflation' and away you go again. That's why real experiments are necessary. There is no way to verify or falsify any "made up" postdicted theory based on observation because you keep changing the math as you go. If it doesn't work, you folks just make up "dark energy" and now claim 75% of the universe is made of this new stuff, and away you go again changing the formulas.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Lets us try again:

1. How do you explain the rotation curves of galaxies and other objects? (The reason that dark matter is hypothisized)

As long as you're talking about MACHO brands of "dark matter", I don't have a real problem. If you start stuffing formulas with SUSY particles, I'll want some evidence they exist in nature.

2. How do you explain the coherent set of data explained by the 'cosmological redshift' hypothesis?

Frankly I don't and I don't care that much about it either. I can accept an "objects in motion stay in motion" type of expansion like the one from the paper I posted earlier. I have no interest or need of inflation. Alfven's BB theory doesn't require them, and if the universe is actually physically expanding, his "BB theory" is far superior to yours IMO.

(It is not just a simple one line observation, it is a rather large body of evidence.)
3. If you have a cohehernt explanation for 2, how do you explain the acceleartion in 'cosmological redshift'?

I assume it was EM field oriented. I've even seen pretty good papers that remove the need for "dark energy" and replace it with ordinary EM fields.

4. What theories do you have that explain them?

What theories do you have to explain solar wind, or coronal loops? Why fixate on these specific "questions" rather than something closer to home?

I think the double standard where you say neutron star and nutrinos exist but that a hypothesis like inflation , DM or DE can't just shows a mentality that is cherry picking.

Not at all. Unlike inflation, the whole idea of neutrinos came from 'empirical testing' and they show up in empirical tests today. Inflation is evidently dead and gone. There is therefore no "cherry picking" involved. The fact you noticed something you attribute to acceleration does not demonstrate the existence of DE. It simply means that something might "cause" acceleration. It can't be "dark energy" however because that doesn't exist and never shows up in any experiments.

5. What model explains the data better?

Which data? The solar data? Birkeland's solar model that includes charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere wins hands down. PC/EU theory is far more adept at explaining "real" events inside our "real" solar system. Alfven came up with a "big bang" theory too. Have you even read it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't think that source was intended to be an complete comrehensive summary of every facet of the scientific process.

Yes experiments must be done, but your definition of an experiment is limited to a lab. You leave out natural experiments, field experiments, and observational studies.

How about giving me an actual example. Field "experiments" are fine as long as there is a control mechanism involved. "Observational studies" can be ok as well as long as I can be sure what you claim "did it" actually exists in nature and has some effect on nature. I can't tell if inflation once existed based *only* upon an observation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think this is a true reflection of this whole issue. The possibility exists that the mainstream is wrong, but I have no doubt that when better evidence is presented, they will make the neccesary adjustments.

I really wish I believed that. Unfortunately I've seen them in action. They can't explain solar wind acceleration but they don't embrace Birkeland's solution. They can't explain coronal loops and yet they don't embrace Birkeland's solution. They can't explain those jets either, but again, his solar theories are ignored. It took them 60 years to even accept Birkeland's auroral ideas because they were so infatuated with Chapman's math formulas.

Solar wind acceleration is not a "mystery". It was "explained' and 'simulated' in a lab, over 100 years ago. It is 'caused' by charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere. That same "current flow' generates those jets and those multimillion degree coronal loops. This was all demonstrated in a lab over 100 years ago.

I wish I believed they would respond to "better" scientific ideas then the ones they use, but I've seen them in action.

 

[Tubbythin]

The problem with that concept is that you expect me to agree with all of your "assumptions", both in terms of movement and also in terms of what is considered "important". I could frankly not care less about developing an entire creation story just to complete with mainstream theory. I'm far more interested in events inside our solar system, like solar wind, CME's, things like that. These are the things where EU/PC theory can make useful and testable "predictions" and none of them are simply "made up". The ideas work in a lab.

So if you couldn't care less about cosmology, why start a thread about cosmology?

Why should they attempt to compete with "magic math"? It's impossible to play that game and win. In PC/EU theory one tends to be focused on actual physics and what works in a lab. I don't have the luxury you do to just "make up" stuff as I go and fudge the numbers when they don't fit by tweaking another metaphysical variable.

I've not made anything up. Try again.

How about explaining something *useful* with your formulas? How about "predicting" something useful about what happens inside the solar system? Why choose only one set of observations to attempt to match and ignore everything else?

It does explain useful stuff. Like the flatness problem.

You have that exactly backwards. You are the one telling me about a creation event caused by your beloved Nereid. You can't justify your timelines any better than any other creation event without creating "superpowers" to assign to you beloved dead deity.

Is this the fourth time or the fifth time I have had to correct you on this? Either way I think its obvious you're deliberately misinterpreting my words now. Nobody is saying you are a creationist, just that you argue like one.
I dunno why you're talking about deities. You're the only one who has mentioned them. FWIW, inflation gives a solution to the flatness problem which kinda knocks one of the old fine-tuning arguments on the head. So it really is you who has it completely backwards.

The only real difference between you creation story and any other creation story is that your deity is dead, whereas most seem to assume the creator lives.

I don't have a deity. That fact that you decided to make one up on my behalf shows that your only defence is in the form of strawmen. You're really not doing your "not arguing like a creationist" credentials any good at all.

Other than this, you creation mythos is no different from any other mythos.

Well, except for being testable, falsifiable, mathematical, logical...

You have superluminal expansion happening, deities that are unfalsifyable, etc.

SUperluminal expansion is perfectly consistent with GR, as you have been told many many many times. Repeating the same wrong arguments doesn't make them any less wrong, just makes you look more and more daft. There are no unfalsifiable deities because there are no deities. They were something you made up because you're incapable of arguing through science, only through strawmen. Remember?

Now I'm supposed to just "give up" on a theory that I know works in a lab and explains things your dead Nereid inflation deity cult cannot explain because you're fixated on something you can't even demonstrate to begin with in terms of distant observation you keep attributing to something that doesn't even exist.

What theory are you meant to be giving up on? I have no clue what you're talking about here.

That is not so. I don't find *any* of the redshift arguments overly compelling and I'm more interested in solar system activity. I therefore am not particularly attached to any redshift "explanation" to the point I would give up empirical physics to join a dead deity cult.

If you're not interested in cosmological observations, why start a thread about the best theory we have to describe them? If you don't care about cosmology just stop posting on a cosmology thread? Nobodies forcing you.

Bull. The "truth" is that your inflation deity is dead.

There is no inflation deity. Its a strawman you made up. You seem incapable of discriminating between the real world and the ideas in your head.

It can't be tested.

Contradict yourself much? One minute you say its been falsified the next that it can't be tested. They can't both be right (though they can both be wrong).

Your faith in inflation is useless in helping us predict the outcome of any real experiment.

Not at all.

In truth you can't empirically demonstrate the existence of your deity.

We have no deity. That was your laughable strawman. The more strawman arguments you make about deities that you invented the more and more stupid you look.

You're mad at the messenger like any religious "believer" because I won't bow down and have faith in a dead and non existent thing.

I'm not at you. I find you mildly amusing. The frequency with which you contradict yourself is something to behold.

The only "lies" being told is that inflation did anything. The only lies that are being told is that "dark energy" moves the universe. These things are illusions of your mind, nothing more.

Put up or shut up then. Come up with a better solution to the observational evidence.

 

[Michael Mozina]

ETA
He is not saying that "Space" is expanding

I am open to the idea of an "objects in motion stay in motion" type of "expansion", just not the concept of "expanding space".