Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[DeiRenDopa]

I think this is another Lather, Wash, Rinse, Repeat cycle ...

It wouldn't be like that if you could empirically demonstrate your claim in a real experiment with real control mechanisms. If you could demonstrate the existence of inflation and it's affect on nature we would not be in this position. Since I'm simply required to have "faith' in something that presumably does not exist anymore, and I don't happen to have faith in the idea, where exactly does that leave us?

(bold added)
AOHDH

Oh, and thanks for the confirmation that this is, indeed, another Lather, Wash, Rinse, Repeat cycle (LWRRc?).

The demonstrations were made in page 1 of this thread, and in the WMAP team paper I cited (among other places).

None of these uncontrolled observations were any sort of "demonstration" of concept. Let's look at a real "demonstration". Birkeland believed that electrical currents caused aurora. He didn't just write about the connection and work on paper, he *experimented with them in a lab*. In an empirical way, he demonstrated his idea with real spheres in a real plasma vacuum.

Compare and contrast that now with Guth. He started from a premise and postdicted a math fit and never once lifted a finger to physically demonstrate anything. You did not and could never provide an actual 'demonstration" of the effect on inflation on anything. You simply *asserted* it's temporary influence on the universe somewhere in the distant and murky past, and then postdicted a math fit to make it work. Noting was "demonstrated" empirically.

(bold added)
AOHDH, and yep, another WLRRc

BTW, I'm still looking forward to hearing from you once you've finished reading the TASI Lectures on Inflation ...

Of course, if one applies the MM criterion for acceptability, then it would seem that such "demonstrations" have not, in fact, been made ... at least for inflation (for DE it depends on what you mean; in at least two meanings, they have).

Inflation is the biggest leap of faith because evidently there is no hope of ever demonstrating it exists in nature because it does not exist in nature.

(bold added)

Thanks!

You may have written something like this before, but this will do.

May I ask how come you are so absolutely certain (about inflation not existing in nature)?

Do you have some kind of crystal ball that enables you to see into the certain future, and can report to us what you saw?

What is the basis for your certainty?

The term DE seems to have a variety of meanings depending on whom you ask and how they personally view the idea.

How about a linguist, or dictionary maker?

Applying the empirical tools of their trade, I'm pretty sure they'd come up with at least two meanings, and without too much trouble could show that at least one person has used the term with both meanings.

So it's important to be clear in one's writing, is it not?

Which of the meanings of DE is it that you put in the same class as inflation?

In my next post, I'll bump a recent post of mine addressed to you that has not been answered yet; your answer may go some way to clarifying the extent to which your criteria are empirical, consistent, and useful.

I don't really get the impression you're actually looking for answers here. You only seem interested in finding some perceived inconsistency on my part instead of simply demonstrating that Lambda-CMD theory isn't "woo". It is certainly useless "woo". Inflation doesn't exist. It was a creative *imaginary* thing, but it isn't 'physically real', not today, and not ever. Nothing useful in a controlled experiment can be *predicted* based upon inflation, and it has plenty of know "anomalies" even in the only cosmology theory that actually needs or requires it. It's pure woo because it's a mathematical mythos like numerology, and like numerology it has zero predictive value in any controlled experiment.

(bold added)

LWRRc

Now that I noticed it - the absolute certainty - I can see traces of it in other parts of what you have written.

PC/EU theory may in fact be "wrong', but it can't be "woo", because EM fields and gravity exist in nature and can be "demonstrated" to exists in nature.

Whether it's woo or not depends on your criteria for assessing what's scientific and what's not.

A pretty fundamental criterion is internal consistency.

It may be that if (when?) you get around to writing a standard text on "PC/EU theory", its internal consistency will become clear. However, based solely on what you have written in three threads in this forum, "PC/EU theory" clearly lacks internal consistency (and so meets one criterion for being scientific woo).

Inflation and DE are simply fudge factors for human ignorance and Lambda theory is 96% "hypothetical entity" and only 4% actual physics.

LWRRc

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Just so that I don't misunderstand ...

You seem to be saying that it is impossible, under any circumstances whatsoever, for something to be discovered 'in nature' from astronomical observations which later - maybe even decades or centuries later - becomes testable/verifiable/whatever in labs in controlled experiments; are you?

No.

Wow!

Now that's an answer I was not expecting!

So, you are saying that it is possible, under some circumstances, for something to be discovered 'in nature' from astronomical observations which later - maybe even decades or centuries later - becomes testable/verifiable/whatever in labs in controlled experiments; are you?

To make this concrete: at least one element (helium) was first discovered in the spectrum of the Sun; later - ~a quarter of a century later - it was found in rocks here on Earth. By your criteria for assessing (astrophysics, in this case) scientific woo, helium did not exist until 1895, and all scientific work - by astronomers, chemists, geologists, etc - until then, on helium, should have received no MM-approved funding, as it would have been a clear-cut case of woo.

Did I get it right?

Not even close and that is a *terrible* example that only hurts your case. Whereas the wavelengths of various photons can be empirically traced to specific elements in controlled experimentation, inflation has no affect on anything. Inflation has no affect today, tomorrow or a million years from now so unlike the photon example you cited, no controlled experiment could even hope to identify the source of inflation. This only hurts your case, it certainly doesn't help it.

(bold added)

First, now I've been sensitised to it, I see this absolutism everywhere!

Second, whoops.

I appreciate that these kinds of historical examples can be difficult to follow, if only because it can be so hard to avoid imposing contemporary understanding onto the minds of the scientists of the time.

"Whereas the wavelengths of various photons can be empirically traced to specific elements in controlled experimentation" - that's certainly a contemporary view (if not entirely accurate), but it was not at all the case in 1868; and for He, it would be another quarter of a century before the 'empirical tracing in controlled experiments' came to be.

What I'm interested in is what an MM clone would have said, if he had applied the MM criteria for determining whether "helium" was scientific woo or not, say in 1870, or 1875, or 1880, or 1885, or 1890. As I understand what you have written, such an MM clone would have been most certain that "helium" was a ... what did you call it? ... ah yes, "a creative *imaginary* thing, but it isn't 'physically real', not today, and not ever. Nothing useful in a controlled experiment can be *predicted* based upon [helium]" and "[Helium] is the biggest leap of faith because evidently there is no hope of ever demonstrating it exists in nature because it does not exist in nature."

It would be only in 1895 that this MM clone's absolute certainty would be shown to be wrong ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Okey, dokey, ...

Follow-on question then: do I understand that you are completely and totally convinced that the only possible explanation/accounting of the various "DE" observations is "EM fields" or "electricity" or "electrical discharges" (or some such thing)? That it is utterly impossible for the "DE" observations to turn out to be some subtle combination of selection effects, stellar evolution, misapplication of GR, and downright bad luck (to make up one example)?

It could turn out to be *anything* that actually exists in nature. It can't be "dark energy' however because that does not exist in nature. If you're convinced however that there is an acceleration process in play in a mostly plasma universe, the obvious "likely candidate" would be an EM field. I don't really care what you stuff into a GR formula as long as you can demonstrate that what you stuff in there has real affect on real things.

(bold added)

Yep, it's everywhere, this absolute certainty.

I think you mean "effect", as in "a real effect".

There've been several posts in this thread, and at least one other that you've participated in MM, that address 'reality' (as in "real effect" and "real things") - several by DD for example - and how contemporary physics (and other branches of science) relate to reality.

There've also been several on how your criteria for determining what's "real", as in both "real effects" and "real things", are idiosyncratic, and applied inconsistently (or inconsistent).

To me at least, it's becoming clear that you, MM, have such a poor understanding of contemporary physics that it's no surprise to read this: "I don't really care what you stuff into a GR formula as long as you can demonstrate that what you stuff in there has real affect on real things." IIRC, si (and others, possibly) has already tried to explain scalar fields, their role in modern physics, and how concepts like inflation and DE may be thought of as nothing more than yet another application of such fields. In this sense, inflation and DE are analogous to neutron stars and black holes: they are extensions of concepts that have been shown to provide exceptionally good explanations for a wide range of observations and experiments (yes, including controlled experiments). So the "real things" - observables (astronomical observations, in this case), whether the CMB, SgrA*, SNe Ias, or Geminga - can be described as the "real effects" of (certain) scalar fields (or squishing lots of ordinary matter together).

Further, that, in the unlikely event that a full appreciation of the nature of DE, obtained by research such as that described in the paper, leads - directly or indirectly - to something really, really, really useful (a way to greatly improve the efficiency of fusion reactors perhaps), you will still declare the research to have been "the most pointless waste of money I can think of"?

In the "unlikely event" that you or anyone else ever actually "predicts" anything useful in a "controlled experiment" based on their faith in DE theory I'll happily recant my statement. Until then it looks and smells just like the same postdiction process that brought us nonexistent and utterly useless inflation.

Shall I bump my post on the ISW?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hi again Michael,

Not sure if you challenged me on Ari B's paper. Honestly, I don't wish to dig through this thread to find it.

We briefly went through it a bit and I think the general consensus was that the primary weakness is based on the fact that there is little if any difference in scattering at different wavelengths. I never did start down DRD's list of "issues" since it's only one of several options I've presented here, including that paper about simple expansion being able to reproduce the same based effect.

I would like to present you with a simple, laboratory experiment that describes negative energy.

Let's use a rubberband. Place this rubberband between your two fingers and stretch it. How much you stretch it is irrelevant. The work you applied to stretching this rubberband is kinetic energy. Now, when you are holding this rubberband, it also has potential energy. The potential energy is the stored energy that wants to snap the rubberband back to its original shape.

I believe we all agree that the kinetic energy applied to the rubberband to make it stretch can be considered 'positive' energy. We applied a force to the rubberband. We have added energy to a closed system.

This is much like PS's note about selecting an arbitrary zero point in a gravity experiment. There is no doubt that we can mathematically do this without a problem within a domain applicability. That does not however take note of any energy contained in the molecules of the rubberband itself. It too contains "energy" that can be released from the rubber band, just by burning it.

The laws of conservation demand that one of the two energy sources be considered negative. If you can explain it a different way, I'd love to hear it.

This part isn't actually in dispute. In other words for various experiments we can select any arbitrary point and assign it a "false zero". Obvious that zero point can even contain vast amounts of potential energy. From a mathematical perspective, we can describe the pendulum at a "zero state" at either the top or bottom of it's cycle. If we assign zero to the top of the swing, it will return to zero on the other side. The problem however is that the zero location in that scenario actually has potential energy that is going to be converted to positive kinetic energy and back to potential energy again. It's still either "potential" or "kinetic' energy. The energy of the universe is contained in moving particles of kinetic energy. It has kinetic energy in the system already. There is no such thing as "negative kinetic energy". That kinetic energy came from somewhere, it is not "gravity".

I think everyone here has ignored that two bomb analogy now. Perhaps since you've not probably read it yet, I'll explain it to you and see how you respond.

Imagine a universe composed of only two hydrogen bombs, and we put them together side by side. Yes, we can play math games with gravity and rubber bands and show how potential energy can be view as "negative" and we can play with the potential energy and kinetic energy and see how it all balances out just fine on paper. You might then think the whole thing has a "zero energy state". This however does *not* take into account the energy contained in the mass itself which we can demonstrate by setting off both bombs and releasing some of that energy. The mass itself contains energy and it can be converted to energy. The "gravity" then of the mass is simply an indicator of how much energy is contained in the mass, but it does not offset that energy when we set off the bombs. Nothing is going to counteract that energy release and bring it all back together again.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sure but the kinetic energy isn't what is holding it up there, it's falling.

It's not falling directly into the sun. The kinetic energy prevents that from happening. No kinetic energy, no stable orbit.

If it wasn't moving it would fall in without any help.

You would have to remove preexisting kinetic energy from the system to do that. Gravity isn't going to do that by itself.

It takes "negative energy" to bring the earth and the sun together (as opposed to positive energy to bring two like charges together).

It would require that we somehow remove the existing kinetic energy from the system. Again, the curvature of gravity isn't going to do that for us.

Based on what? Where did the energy come from?

It came from whatever predated the "bang" presumably. Alfven's "Bang" model is much easier to explain by the way because there's not singularity involved and there's no complicated explanation necessary. The Klein-Alfven version just *assumes* a positive energy universe composed of matter and antimatter that is simply 'cycling' from time to time, much like a pendulum thing, only energy is released in each cycle.

There was never a point were no energy existed or we would simply not be here. Something cannot come from "nothing". That would defy the laws of physics. We have a universe filled with energy and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so whatever created this universe had energy to start with.

They've supported the net zero energy with GR, you'll have to support surplus kinetic energy with something as comprehensive and well supported.

No, the hydrogen bomb example illustrates the flaw in your logic on this point. All you've done is select an *arbitrary* zero and you have failed to account for all the actual energy in the whole system.

Who claimed that a mass object has zero energy? No one.

Then the universe does not have a zero energy state because it contains mass and kinetic energy. Both the mass itself and the kinetic energy are forms of energy. The existence of mass and kinetic energy is not in doubt, and the laws of physics tell us explicitly that it was never created or destroyed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Uh, sure , this contradicts something, what is it that you have been talking about, what was it, ... it will come to me in a moment...

conservation of something?

All that is required is that the energy that makes up our universe came from something. There's no contradiction. The only problem you all seem to be having here is the with the basic idea of conservation of energy and what it means to your beloved BB theory.

The fact we experience and enjoy energy today is due to the fact that energy has always existed in some form or another. I know that idea seems to scare you folks, but it's a scientific fact based on known "laws" of physics. The universe didn't just go "poof" out of "nothing", the energy that makes up our universe predated whatever event you're calling the "big bang". It was not "created". I was not "destroyed". It simply changed form from one state to another. The positive energy state that we enjoy today has always existed. It has never been created or destroyed. That is a "law" of physics, and you cannot escape it's implications. The BB event was not a "creation" event where energy was created. It was a "change of form" from one form of energy to another, and it was never zero.

 

[Hellbound]

It's not falling directly into the sun. The kinetic energy prevents that from happening. No kinetic energy, no stable orbit.



You would have to remove preexisting kinetic energy from the system to do that. Gravity isn't going to do that by itself.



It would require that we somehow remove the existing kinetic energy from the system. Again, the curvature of gravity isn't going to do that for us.

Um, actually, if you let if fall towards the sun, it would gain kinetic energy as it's speed increased. Matter of fact, you don't have to remove kinetic energy from it; you can just as easily add kinetic energy to change it's direction.

Additionally, gravity is adding energy to it constantly as it moves, and that energy is used to change it's motion (i.e.-accelerate it) so that it orbits rather than flying off straight in one direction.

If you're going to use scientific terms, it helps to use them correctly and understand them, at least to some degree.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're absolutely right, and Zig was wrong. This isn't freshman physics..... it's primary school physics. And you fail utterly.

Aren't you ashamed?

I'm ashamed for you that I have to explain the meaning of conservation of energy laws to you, and explain to you that you live in a universe filled with energy. If I were you I'd be very ashamed.

You've got a website devoted to the sun. You even have papers about it (published, even - I shudder for the peer review system). And yet you don't know that gravitational potential energy is negative.

You keep ignoring my conversation with PS where I explained you are simply selecting an *arbitrary* zero frame of references and in such a case it does have a limited application to use minus signs in your math formulas. Did you not hear that, or just not comprehend it, or are you just posturing like always?

This physical universe is *filled* with kinetic energy. It came from somewhere. It didn't go "poof" one day in a creation event. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It has *always* (as in eternity boys and girls) existed. Our physical universe could in fact have a 'beginning', but the *energy* in this system does not. It has never been created or destroyed.

 

[Reality Check]

All that is required is that the energy that makes up our universe came from something. There's no contradiction. The only problem you all seem to be having here is the with the basic idea of conservation of energy and what it means to your beloved BB theory.

The fact we experience and enjoy energy today is due to the fact that energy has always existed in some form or another. I know that idea seems to scare you folks, but it's a scientific fact based on known "laws" of physics. The universe didn't just go "poof" out of "nothing", the energy that makes up our universe predated whatever event you're calling the "big bang". It was not "created". I was not "destroyed". It simply changed form from one state to another. The positive energy state that we enjoy today has always existed. It has never been created or destroyed. That is a "law" of physics, and you cannot escape it's implications. The BB event was not a "creation" event where energy was created. It was a "change of form" from one form of energy to another, and it was never zero.

MM: All I see here are lots and lots of assertions, e.g. "The universe didn't just go "poof" out of "nothing"".
Can you provide your proof that the universe has a positive amount of energy or a "positive energy state" (whatever that is)?

I am sure that everyone would be interested in the proof.
Since it will directly contradict GR, I can see a Nobel Prize in your future!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Um, actually, if you let if fall towards the sun, it would gain kinetic energy as it's speed increased.

Indeed. Even the distance between objects is itself a form of "stored potential energy".

You are all ignoring a key issue here. The energy was not ever created or destroyed. It has always and eternally existed. It has undoubtedly changed forms and physical layouts countless times, but it was *NEVER* created, and *NEVER* destroyed. It has *always existed*. You all keep acting as though energy was somehow created by something during the BB, when in fact it could not have been created or destroyed in that event, it could *only* have changed forms.

The mainstream problems I encounter are never a failure of their understanding of math, but in the lack of understanding of physics and energy. Energy isn't created or destroyed in "events". It only changes forms in "events" like the BB. There has never been a time when positive energy did not exist.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not falling directly into the sun. The kinetic energy prevents that from happening. No kinetic energy, no stable orbit.

And yet, Mercury has more kinetic energy per mass than the earth does. Kinetic energy is indeed required for an orbit (though it can be arbitrarily small), but you can create kinetic energy during the falling process. No, what distinguishes an orbit from a collision is not the kinetic energy, but the angular momentum. What energy WILL tell you about, though, is whether you've got an orbit or an escape: if the total energy (kinetic + gravitational potential) is negative, you've got a bound state, and if it's positive, the two bodies will escape each other. Freshman physics. Total energy for bound orbits is negative.

You would have to remove preexisting kinetic energy from the system to do that. Gravity isn't going to do that by itself.

Nonsense. Two massive bodies at rest near each other have zero kinetic energy. But gravity will pull them towards each other, they will begin to move towards each other, and gain kinetic energy in the process. So gravity will obviously do exactly what you said it won't do. The gravitational potential energy they had at the start is not kinetic energy. Are you really so confused that you think all energy is kinetic energy? It is not. You've been told this multiple times, you've had it explained to you in detail, and yet you persist in this error. Sol was right: your comprehension failure isn't even at the freshman level, it's at the primary school level.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM: All I see here are lots and lots of assertions, e.g. "The universe didn't just go "poof" out of "nothing"".

Why would you even doubt the validity of that particular assertion given the *LAWS* of conservation of energy?

Can you provide your proof that the universe has a positive amount of energy or a "positive energy state" (whatever that is)?

Sure. Stand in the sunshine today and feel the heat on your face. Gravity won't and can't take that away from you. Feel the wind in your face. That's kinetic energy in motion. The whole universe is kinetic energy in motion.

I am sure that everyone would be interested in the proof.
Since it will directly contradict GR,

This is a totally bogus statement. It does not conflict with GR. You guys use and abuse GR for all sorts of stupid nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with GR to begin with.

Energy exists in nature. I has always existed in nature. Period. It may have changed forms during a "bang" at some point, but it has always existed. It didn't just go "poof" out of "nothing" one day.

 

[Michael Mozina]

DRD.

I am still waiting for you to sit down and provide for us a "cause/effect" set of "explanations" related to what you personally believe happened during the BB as you promised. I'm really getting tired of the legaleeze word games and your avoidance of the actual issues I have raised. Care to provide a few answers of your own for a change?

 

[Reality Check]

I'm ashamed for you that I have to explain the meaning of conservation of energy laws to you, and explain to you that you live in a universe filled with energy. If I were you I'd be very ashamed.

You keep ignoring my conversation with PS where I explained you are simply selecting an *arbitrary* zero frame of references and in such a case it does have a limited application to use minus signs in your math formulas. Did you not hear that, or just not comprehend it, or are you just posturing like always?

This physical universe is *filled* with kinetic energy. It came from somewhere. It didn't go "poof" one day in a creation event. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It has *always* (as in eternity boys and girls) existed. Our physical universe could in fact have a 'beginning', but the *energy* in this system does not. It has never been created or destroyed.

The universe is actually "filled" with more than kinetic energy. In fact (ASAIK) kinetic energy is the the smallest component of energy in the universe. It is overwhelmed by the non-kinetic energy of the photons iof the CMB. It is overwhelmed by the energy contained in matter (mass/energy equivalence).

As for "*arbitrary* zero frame of references", this is just a matter of convention. We could put the zero of gravitational potential energy at the center of the system instead at infinity. All this would do is make the kinetic energy gained by a falling object negative instead positive (so long as you are Ok with the velocity of the object being imaginary).

This does not even need GR - it is simple Newtonian mechanics as taught to high school students. They know that a falling object gains kinetic energy and loses gravitational potentail energy, i.e. energy is conserved

In addition: As you well know and are obviously ignoring "Lambda-CDM theory" usually known as Big Bang Theory does not apply to the origin of the universe. It starts at a point where the universe already exists. What happened before then is the realm of other theories.

 

[Reality Check]

Why would you even doubt the validity of that particular assertion given the *LAWS* of conservation of energy?

The *LAWS* of conservation of energy also apply to a zero amount of energy. You need to prove that the univser has a POSITIVE amount of energy

Sure. Stand in the sunshine today and feel the heat on your face. Gravity won't and can't take that away from you. Feel the wind in your face. That's kinetic energy in motion. The whole universe is kinetic energy in motion.

So you are saying the E is not equal to mc². That there is no energy in matter?
Are you saying that there is no energy in the photons of the CMB: E = hc/wavelength?
Are you saying that gravitation potential energy does not exist?

This is a totally bogus statement. It does not conflict with GR. You guys use and abuse GR for all sorts of stupid nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with GR to begin with.

Energy exists in nature. I has always existed in nature. Period. It may have changed forms during a "bang" at some point, but it has always existed. It didn't just go "poof" out of "nothing" one day.

There is no conflict with GR. Read my post: The kinetic energy of the universe is a small component of the total energy of the universe. There is a reason that GR has an energy-mass tensor.

Energy exists in the universe. No one disputes this. Please give your proof that there is a positive amount of energy in the universe. Perhaps the CMB power spectrum shows this?
Also plug this positive energy into GR and tell us the consequences. sol invictus can probably tell you what the consequences are (my impression is that the universe remains as a singularity).

 

[Michael Mozina]

(bold added)

Yep, it's everywhere, this absolute certainty.

I think you mean "effect", as in "a real effect".

Wow, you found a spelling mistake. Notify the press.

There've been several posts in this thread, and at least one other that you've participated in MM, that address 'reality' (as in "real effect" and "real things") - several by DD for example - and how contemporary physics (and other branches of science) relate to reality.

There've also been several on how your criteria for determining what's "real", as in both "real effects" and "real things", are idiosyncratic, and applied inconsistently (or inconsistent).

To me at least, it's becoming clear that you, MM, have such a poor understanding of contemporary physics

There you go blaming me because you can't support your claim via empirical physics and you want me to give you some special exception about not having to empirically demonstrate your claim like any other ordinary branch of empirical physics. Baloney. I know your theory *cannot* be demonstrated in real "physical experiments" because "inflation" is not a part of physics. It's only a part of one theory that you seem to have faith in. The problem here is obvious. Inflation is dead. It's useless to empirical science and it's only place is in mathematical mythos related to one otherwise failed cosmology theory There is not "understanding of physics" that I lack. If you claimed EM fields did it, you could physically demonstrate EM fields have an Effect on nature. The same is true of any known and demonstrated force/curvature of nature. The only reason you can't produce inflation is because it *DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE*.

Go ahead and play more word games and avoid doing what you said you would do, but all that demonstrates to me is that you cannot actually "explain" anything related to the BB. It's all fabricated with ad hoc assertions and dead, non existent entities that don't exist and have never existed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The *LAWS* of conservation of energy also apply to a zero amount of energy. You need to prove that the univser has a POSITIVE amount of energy

Stand in the sunshine. Did gravity take away the heat from the sun from you?

So you are saying the E is not equal to mc². That there is no energy in matter?

Do you folks all go to the same strawman creation classes or what? That is evidently *your* claim, not mine.

Energy exists in the universe. No one disputes this.

Then why are you asking me to demonstrate it for you?

Please give your proof that there is a positive amount of energy in the universe.

I've done that for you with the bomb analogy, the sunshine on your face analogy, the wind on your face analogy. How could you ever hope to demonstrate that the universe has "zero" energy? It's patently absurd as my bomb analogy demonstrated and none of your touched with a ten foot pole!

Perhaps the CMB power spectrum shows this?

Evidently it shows an energy release pattern you find interesting, but then you ignore it existence entirely and claim I have to demonstrate the universe has energy? You guys have really conflicted set of ad hoc beliefs.

Also plug this positive energy into GR and tell us the consequences.

It's called a 'bang'

 

[sol invictus]

It's not falling directly into the sun. The kinetic energy prevents that from happening.

Utter nonsense. The earth could have precisely the KE it currently has and fall directly into the sun.
[/QUOTE]

You keep ignoring my conversation with PS where I explained you are simply selecting an *arbitrary* zero frame of references and in such a case it does have a limited application to use minus signs in your math formulas.

Why don't you give us a "frame of reference" (another basic term you plainly don't know the meaning of) in which all gravitational potential energies are positive then, MM?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow!

Now that's an answer I was not expecting!

So, you are saying that it is possible, under some circumstances, for something to be discovered 'in nature' from astronomical observations which later - maybe even decades or centuries later - becomes testable/verifiable/whatever in labs in controlled experiments; are you?

Sure. In the case you mentioned we observed photons from nature. There must be a natural explanation for them. In the case of inflation, we see nothing today, and it has no affect on anything today. That's why it's woo. There's no hope of ever physically demonstrate anything.

"Whereas the wavelengths of various photons can be empirically traced to specific elements in controlled experimentation" - that's certainly a contemporary view (if not entirely accurate), but it was not at all the case in 1868; and for He, it would be another quarter of a century before the 'empirical tracing in controlled experiments' came to be.

Nobody at that time claimed it could *NEVER* be empirically demonstrated *ever*, even if their technology did not yet identify the source. It was an *ongoing* event as well, so whatever the cause, there was a natural cause and it could be identified sooner or later.

In the case of inflation, it evidently is dead and gone, it has no effect on squat anymore, and it will never be empirically demonstrated in a lab. No comparison at all. In fact you're only digging the hole deeper and deeper because you refuse to acknowledge this obvious difference between them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And yet, Mercury has more kinetic energy per mass than the earth does. Kinetic energy is indeed required for an orbit (though it can be arbitrarily small), but you can create kinetic energy during the falling process.

Sure. That is because even "distance" (no relative motion whatsoever) is a form of "stored potential energy". That energy can be converted right back to kinetic energy. All this demonstrates is an ample supply of "stored potential energy" and "kinetic energy already in motion".