Holes in Big Bang

[Mr.D]

First off: That's not what I wrote.

All i had was you stating you had a PhD, as though i was just going receed.

I finished all the coursework for a Ph.D in physics some 15 years ago (I changed career paths before finishing my dissertation),

Secondly:

Sir, your attitude on that sub-forum included you going to nominate a specific passage in which you said the 720 degree spin was an error i made. Then when i challenged you on it, you said the article was out of date.

The two links you provided are to articles that are almost 15 and 25 years old. But I took a very quick glance - nothing that looks too egregiously wrong for "Analog - Science Fiction and Fact Magazine" articles of that vintage.

Meaning - They're basically right but hardly rigorous science (but probably easy to google up!)


And the Stundie nom with some context:

Having some kind of dimension to them though, has great advantages. No longer would spin be considered angular momentum, but it would be classically-viewed with the original concept of a real spin.

You cannot have a real spin, because for a pointlike object to rotate back to their original orientations would require to make

, so it would need to spin twice as fast, meaning it would also have to spin faster than the speed of light, which is currently not allowed.

I can't even count the number of fails Singularitarian has in that thread, but "currently not allowed" is certainly the funniest.

The "spin 1/2 -> 720^o rotation" concept is Intro to QM 101 and is one of the traditional ways to demonstrate to students how the classical models fail; I've even set up the "back of the envelope" homework for you.

And in any case you've even managed to mangle the entire argument so badly that I can't even deconstruct and correct it without devoting an entire post to it.

So the failure so far is entirely yours.

Get real. And if you have a PhD good for you - start using it.

And if you have any humility, good for you - start using it.

 

[Ziggurat]

What's in name? Consider for a moment if I simply pilfered your various math formulas and called it "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter". Suppose I kept changing all the parameters to suit myself and make these formulas fit. Would the fact I got it to fit the observations be evidence that God did it?

What a silly question. You have a model of "godflation", "god energy", and "god matter". But God is nowhere within this model, so obviously the model says nothing about God. But if the model works, then once again, what's in a name? It doesn't matter if you use such names. And in fact, the Higgs boson has been nicknamed the God particle.

How then do we decide where "science" ends and 'religion' begins if I get to change all the rules and formulas as I go?

When you figure out how to apply a formula to religion at all, let me know. Until then, it seems to me the dividing line is pretty damned clear.

 

[sol invictus]

But we still have not ever demonstrated a cause/effect relationship based on actual controlled experimentation.

And we may never. Too bad for us, but the universe couldn't care less.

The implication here is that I can't reject your theory without replacing it with something else.

No, I didn't say that. I said you could reject it if you make an observation which is not compatible with it. You might also reject it even if you don't have that, but instead have a superior alternative.

Well, the difference here is rather clear. We can observe micro-evolutionary processes in the lab.

We can do that now, yes - but that's a fairly recent development. When the theory was proposed more than 150 years ago, that was impossible. The only evidence came from fossils. The evidence for inflation is much like the fossil record, or like DNA evidence. Most biologists will tell you those two alone form an extremely compelling set of evidence for evolution. Do you disagree with that?

But if those dark flows were not predicted in the first place, why wouldn't that rule out inflation by itself? How come we get to keep tweaking everything without ever demonstrating any actually cause/effect 'property' of inflation?

Because, as I already told you, inflation isn't really a theory. It can only predict certain things, and those only roughly. It didn't predict dark flows would be there, but it didn't predict they wouldn't be there either.

What's in name? Consider for a moment if I simply pilfered your various math formulas and called it "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter". Suppose I kept changing all the parameters to suit myself and make these formulas fit. Would the fact I got it to fit the observations be evidence that God did it? Obviously not.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

How then do we decide where "science" ends and 'religion' begins if I get to change all the rules and formulas as I go?

There is a way to compare competing theories, even when both are consistent with all available data. Roughly speaking, the simpler theory - the one with fewer parameters - is preferred. "God did it" can be thought of as a theory with an infinite number of parameters. A typical inflation model has two or three.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What is striking about this paper is how completely incompatible it is with general relativity, and yet there is no attempt to reconcile or justify this incompatibility.

In what way is it 'incompatible' with GR?

In fact, there is no mention of general relativity at all.

That's because gravity is essentially a bit player in Alfven's bang model and it's not the force/curvature that causes the 'bang'.

Also missing is any mention of the CMB, which this alternative cannot explain.

Ok.

So why is it interesting, Michael, when it fails to account for observations and is incompatible with our best-tested theory of gravity?

First of all, "dark energy" is not "gravity". Inflation isn't "gravity" either. Stuffing one or more of these things into a GR theory does not mean these things are related to "gravity". You simply stuffed one or more variables into a "blunder" theory that is not directly related to a zero constant gravity theory.

Secondly, let's try this changing of terms thing from the other direction:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205058

The first paper attempts to do away with "dark energy" and replace it with an ordinary EM field, but it requires some sort of "inflation", or an appropriate substitute. The second paper is the one that attempts to eliminate "inflation". Put the two together and you end up with an "electric universe' scenario that requires no inflation and is much closer to Alfven's original ideas and has all the benefits I'm looking for as it relates to the effects of the EM field on solar system activity. Do you have any problem with *THAT* model?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What a silly question. You have a model of "godflation", "god energy", and "god matter". But God is nowhere within this model, so obviously the model says nothing about God.

We can change that pretty instantly just by suggesting the 'cause' of the event was 'intentional' and we've only added one additional parameter, namely conscious will. Conscious will shows up on Earth so that happens to be the *LEAST* of your worries as it relates to ad hoc assertions.

But if the model works, then once again, what's in a name? It doesn't matter if you use such names. And in fact, the Higgs boson has been nicknamed the God particle.

But if we add in ad hoc properties galore, what prevents me from adding consciousness to the mix? How do we now differentiate between science, and religion?

When you figure out how to apply a formula to religion at all, let me know. Until then, it seems to me the dividing line is pretty damned clear.

I don't need to add any more math, just conscious intent. That happens to be something that *DOES* show up in a lab by the way, so you've got nothing to complain about, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

But if we add in ad hoc properties galore, what prevents me from adding consciousness to the mix? How do we now differentiate between science, and religion?

when you develop a mathematical model for what consciousness is and what it does, get back to me. At that point you will have something very different from religion. Otherwise, it's nothing like adding features or parameters to an actual physical model.

But then, the whole concept of quantifying things has always presented problems for you.

 

[Ziggurat]

In what way is it 'incompatible' with GR?

The contraction followed by expansion is not a valid solution to Einstein's field equations. It doesn't work.

That's because gravity is essentially a bit player in Alfven's bang model and it's not the force/curvature that causes the 'bang'.

It doesn't work that way, Michael. Matter/antimatter annihilation cannot cause an expansion of space itself, it can only expand objects within space. So it can't rescue this model from being inconsistent with general relativity. Either Alfven's model is wrong or general relativity is wrong. You can't have both.

First of all, "dark energy" is not "gravity".

No, it isn't. But it has gravitational effects, just like every other form of energy.

Inflation isn't "gravity" either. Stuffing one or more of these things into a GR theory does not mean these things are related to "gravity".

If it has an effect the geometry of space-time (and both do), then it very much is related to gravity. And you've dodged the question: why is that Alfven paper interesting when it can't account for observations and is inconsistent with general relativity?

Secondly, let's try this changing of terms thing from the other direction:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205058

The first paper attempts to do away with "dark energy" and replace it with an ordinary EM field

No it doesn't. Rather, it proposes a model in which dark energy is ordinary electromagnetic fields.

The second paper is the one that attempts to eliminate "inflation". Put the two together and you end up with an "electric universe' scenario that requires no inflation and is much closer to Alfven's original ideas

Uh, no. Put them together and you get a more traditional big bang without inflation, not Alfven's scenario. Those two papers still operate within the context of general relativity, whereas Alfven's scenario is rather obviously (to anyone familiar with it) outside of GR. How you concluded that this would produce something like Alfven's theory is quite beyond me, but you're simply and completely wrong about that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And we may never. Too bad for us, but the universe couldn't care less.

Perhaps not, but *I* care. If I can't ever hope to demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between inflation and any property you assign to inflation, I will forever be required to have "pure faith" in inflation and the properties assigned to it. Pure faith is religion not science.

No, I didn't say that. I said you could reject it if you make an observation which is not compatible with it.

But you never demonstrated that inflation has the properties assigned to it in the first place. I don't see any evidence that inflation is compatible with the properties that are assigned to it! I'm forced to accept all these assigned properties on pure faith and that's the part I find objectionable.

You might also reject it even if you don't have that, but instead have a superior alternative.

The notion of "superior" becomes highly subjective. IMO Alfven's/Birkeland's theories are "superior" at predicting and explaining events inside of our solar system and that is what I'd prefer to understand. Whether or not I will *EVER* understand the "bigger picture" is irrelevant from my perspective if I can't explain events *inside* the solar system like solar wind, CME's, etc. How do we define "superior"?

We can do that now, yes - but that's a fairly recent development. When the theory was proposed more than 150 years ago, that was impossible. The only evidence came from fossils.

Well, that and actually living life forms we can touch and feel and experiment with, sure.

The evidence for inflation is much like the fossil record, or like DNA evidence.

Not really. I can't modify a HOX gene in a set of inflation and watch the outcome. I can't physically 'experiment' at all. It is in "some ways" a bit like a fossil record, but there is no living form of inflation to play with, so that analogy is very limited.

Most biologists will tell you those two alone form an extremely compelling set of evidence for evolution. Do you disagree with that?

Sure, but I can play with living DNA and see the results of that experiment in real living things. I can't do that with inflation.

Because, as I already told you, inflation isn't really a theory. It can only predict certain things, and those only roughly. It didn't predict dark flows would be there, but it didn't predict they wouldn't be there either.

But that's my whole point. Inflation has no actual "predictive" value. Everything being called a "prediction' of inflation today is actually a "postdicted" property based on pure observation. No cause/effect relationships exist to ever be able to actually "predict" anything useful. We're constantly surprised by every new observation and we're constantly playing catch up and modifying things to fit.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

I'm saying that if there is no restriction on what ad hoc properties we toss into the mix, then conscious intent is simply one more ad hoc assertion that cannot ever be falsified or scientifically demonstrated and there is no empirical distinction anymore between religion and science. Conscious intent *IS* something that actually does show up in a lab so it would be the least "unscientific" assertion of the whole theory.

There is a way to compare competing theories, even when both are consistent with all available data. Roughly speaking, the simpler theory - the one with fewer parameters - is preferred. "God did it" can be thought of as a theory with an infinite number of parameters. A typical inflation model has two or three.

Ok, but "God did it" has the added benefit of explain *WHY* it happened, whereas inflation theory really doesn't. It only has one more parameter (consciousness) and answers more questions as to why it happened when it happened. If we can simply throw in assertions as we go, without respect to what we can empirically demonstrate, then any theistic brand of a creation theory is necessarily superior to any non theistic form of creation theory. There is no longer any distinction between science and religion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The contraction followed by expansion is not a valid solution to Einstein's field equations. It doesn't work.

The contraction phases *IS* related to gravity, whereas the expansion is related to matter/antimatter annihilation. It does work.

It doesn't work that way, Michael. Matter/antimatter annihilation cannot cause an expansion of space itself, it can only expand objects within space.

Which is exactly why I do not believe that "space" actually expands.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

So it can't rescue this model from being inconsistent with general relativity. Either Alfven's model is wrong or general relativity is wrong. You can't have both.

Yes I can. Read that paper on expansion.

No, it isn't. But it has gravitational effects, just like every other form of energy.

Yes, but so does annihilation. Annihilation happens in nature. Dark energy never shows up in the lab. Why put faith in superstition when there are real physical alternatives like EM fields to explain such things?

If it has an effect the geometry of space-time (and both do), then it very much is related to gravity.

Then anything and everything can be related back to gravity, including Alfven's proposed annihilation.

And you've dodged the question: why is that Alfven paper interesting when it can't account for observations and is inconsistent with general relativity?

I didn't dodge anything, I provided you with actual papers to support everything including expansion without "space" expansion.

No it doesn't. Rather, it proposes a model in which dark energy is ordinary electromagnetic fields.

That issue alone removes one unnecessary metaphysical entity and moves us one step closer to explaining that electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere so that is certainly a step in the right direction in my book. What's wrong with that proposal by the way, and why would you cling to an unproven metaphysical assertion when a real force of nature works "better"?

Uh, no. Put them together and you get a more traditional big bang without inflation, not Alfven's scenario.

You get *AN* electric universe theory that has two fewer metaphysical friends. Isn't that an improvement or are you emotionally attached to metaphysical placeholder terms?

Those two papers still operate within the context of general relativity, whereas Alfven's scenario is rather obviously (to anyone familiar with it) outside of GR.

No, it's not. It simply removes the need to collect all matter and energy to a single point. It removes the need for a "creation myth" of any sort. I removes the need for metaphysical entities, and it removes the need to have "faith" in things we can *NEVER* hope to empirically demonstrate in a lab. In my book that puts it light years ahead of creation mythology.

How you concluded that this would produce something like Alfven's theory is quite beyond me, but you're simply and completely wrong about that.

It would not be "exactly" like Aflven's theories but I'm not emotionally attached to all of Alfven's theories. I'm personally more inclined to go with Birkeland's solar model over the one Alfven proposed, and I'm not attached to any sort of "creation event" one way or the other. If there actually was a creation event, great. If not, that's fine too. I'm open to various ideas, whereas the mainstream seems intent on ignoring any and all alternatives that open the door for any sort of "electric universe' type theory. In fact that is probably why you're resisting these ideas right now.

 

[Michael Mozina]

when you develop a mathematical model for what consciousness is and what it does, get back to me.

You don't figure that is exactly what biologists are attempting to do right now? You aren't under the illusion that it will never happen are you?

At that point you will have something very different from religion.

Not really. Throwing math into the mix won't make it any more or any less falsifiable.

Otherwise, it's nothing like adding features or parameters to an actual physical model.

Sure it is. In fact it actually "explains" *WHY* it all happened. We've added only one more parameter and we've 'explained' why it happened when it happened.

But then, the whole concept of quantifying things has always presented problems for you.

As it relates to quantifying consciousness, it's not just a problem for me personally, but for everyone interested in doing so. You're barking up the wrong tree by blaming me personally for that problem.

 

[Wowbagger]

They tweak various variables until they get a better fit and yet none of these alleged "properties" of inflation have ever been demonstrated. It's all a postdicted fit with no regard to what can be empirically demonstrated in a lab.

But, that's not the end of it. They also go out and continue to make more observations, sometimes in new directions. I'm sure someone can fill in the details.

Agreed, although I have to point out that individual scientists can become VERY dogmatic about their theories.

Individual scientists, yes. It is extremely rare for "dogma" to persist in the whole industry, though. Science, in general, has a history of adopting new paradigms of ideas very rapidly- if they are demonstrated to be correct.

Someone is going to need to do more than cry about "tweaking formulas" to show evidence of "dogma".

 

[sol invictus]

But you never demonstrated that inflation has the properties assigned to it in the first place. I don't see any evidence that inflation is compatible with the properties that are assigned to it! I'm forced to accept all these assigned properties on pure faith and that's the part I find objectionable.

So learn something about it then! Those properties can be derived from any given version of the theory, and then compared to the data.

Well, that and actually living life forms we can touch and feel and experiment with, sure.

If you accept the fossil record as good evidence for evolution, it's incomprehensible to me that you don't accept observational cosmology as evidence for inflation.*

In fact the analogy is quite precise. The experiments you can do with genetics and evolution now have no direct bearing on the origin of species. It is obviously impossible to ever do controlled experiments on that, because it happened in the past. So all we can do is experiments that help confirm our theories, and then apply those theories to the past.

The same goes for inflation. It happened in the past, if it happened at all, so we can't do experiments on it per se. But we can still do experiments today that help confirm it - for example, we can look at the spectrum of cosmic background neutrinos and see if it's compatible with the predictions of inflation, or we can try to create inflaton particles at accelerators, or we can run computer simulations.


*On second thought your position is less coherent than that. You maintain that things like dark flows disprove inflation, while simultaneously claiming inflation isn't testable. According to you, inflation is only science if it's ruled out by dark flows. It's just too incoherent to try to sort out.

 

[Ziggurat]

The contraction phases *IS* related to gravity, whereas the expansion is related to matter/antimatter annihilation. It does work.

No, Michael. It does not work. You're stuck with a Newtonian concept of space and gravity, but it is incompatible with general relativity.

Which is exactly why I do not believe that "space" actually expands.

Then you think general relativity is wrong. Fine, but at least be honest about it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Yeah, um... no. That paper is crap. The objection they start off with (if space is expanding, why aren't all objects expanding?) has a rather obvious and trivial answer: they experience forces. "Dust" (homogenous fluid matter which only interacts via gravity) will not feel any net force, and will in fact expand with space. Furthermore, whatever semantic debates you want to get into about whether or not this is the right terminology to use, nothing in this paper changes the fact that Alfven's model is incompatible with general relativity.

Yes I can. Read that paper on expansion.

I've read enough to know it's irrelevant. They're examining the case of a flat empty universe, an example which is rather obviously NOT applicable to the real universe. And their conclusions are not in fact generalizable.

Yes, but so does annihilation.

Not really. Matter does, and radiation does, but the only consequence of annihilation itself is to change the mass from matter to radiation. It cannot do what Alfven is claiming happens if general relativity is correct.

Dark energy never shows up in the lab.

We've already been through this, Michael. Dark energy does show up in labs (Casimir effect - and yes, that applies regardless of whether the pressure is positive or negative). Furthermore, dark energy is not a requirement of big bang models. And lastly, of course, none of this can rescue Alfven's theory: it remains inconsistent both with observations and with general relativity.

Then anything and everything can be related back to gravity, including Alfven's proposed annihilation.

But not in the way that Alfven would require. So that doesn't help.

I didn't dodge anything, I provided you with actual papers to support everything including expansion without "space" expansion.

You provided me with search results which you clearly didn't really understand, and none of which actually show that Alfven's model can be reconciled with general relativity.

What's wrong with that proposal by the way, and why would you cling to an unproven metaphysical assertion when a real force of nature works "better"?

I didn't say anything was wrong with that proposal. That's not something I'm in a position to comment on right now. But I can comment on its applicability to Alfven's model, and that's basically zero.

You get *AN* electric universe theory

You can call it an electric universe theory if you wish, but it's still a cosmology which obeys general relativity and which has a fairly traditional big bang. If that's the cosmology you would like to believe in, go ahead, I've got no objections. But it doesn't resemble Alfven's cosmology.

No, it's not.

Yes, Michael, it really is. You can keep denying it, but you cannot reconcile Alfven's cosmology with Einstein's field equations. It doesn't work.

It would not be "exactly" like Aflven's theories

Those two papers don't suggest anything at all like Alfven's theory.

I'm personally more inclined to go with Birkeland's solar model

Um... we're discussing cosmology at the moment, Michael, not solar models.

I'm open to various ideas, whereas the mainstream seems intent on ignoring any and all alternatives that open the door for any sort of "electric universe' type theory.

Funny you should make this claim after quoting papers that you claimed supported those sort of ideas.

In fact that is probably why you're resisting these ideas right now.

I'm resisting Alfven's cosmological model because it's crap, Michael. It cannot explain fundamental observations, and it is inconsistent with general relativity (which is very well tested). None of your objections about dark energy have any bearing on that, your claims of consistency are based on your own misunderstanding of general relativity, and the sources you have found to try to support your position do not say what you seem to think they say. It is your own emotional attachment to all things electric, and your distaste for general relativity (which you don't really understand) which draws you to it.

 

[Ziggurat]

You don't figure that is exactly what biologists are attempting to do right now? You aren't under the illusion that it will never happen are you?

Of course not. But it hasn't happened yet, and if and when it does happen, it won't be religion, so your comparison is ridiculous regardless. I thought this would be obvious, but apparently not.

Not really. Throwing math into the mix won't make it any more or any less falsifiable.

Not so. Throwing math into the mix means we can make quantifiable predictions, which is rather a key component of making most theories falsifiable.

 

[ben m]

I dare say MM's position would prevent him from "believing" in the top quark. You can't hold one in your hand. The only "control" we've ever exerted over a top quark is ... well, the Tevatron has been turned on and also turned off. There is not, for example, a control sample of 2 TeV proton collisions with the top-quark process removed. There is not an alternate-universe tau polarization experiment where you can take out the top loops. We did not scan some e+ e- supercollider's energy slowly past the top production threshhold. (RIP, SSC.)

All we have is the one giant collection of proton-antiproton collision data. We compare collection that to one theory (as manifested in a giant numerical simulation), then to another theory (as manifested in another giant numerical simulation) and the so-called "top quark" is just the statement that "the theory in which we include a 174 GeV top quark fits better than any without".

But I don't think Mozina cares one way or another about top quarks. His willingness to believe anything seems to be proportional to the amount by which it reinforces"outsider cosmology is right" narrative.

 

[sol invictus]

The contraction phases *IS* related to gravity, whereas the expansion is related to matter/antimatter annihilation. It does work.

No, Zig is correct. A model with a bounce like that is simply incompatible with general relativity. I can prove it mathematically, or point you to the proofs in the literature.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So learn something about it then! Those properties can be derived from any given version of the theory, and then compared to the data.

This is like a religious person telling me to learn something about God from the bible. I can't verify any of these claims about the properties of inflation. I'm forced to accept them all on faith. Compare and contrast that with telling me go learn something about electrons in controlled experiments.

If you accept the fossil record as good evidence for evolution, it's incomprehensible to me that you don't accept observational cosmology as evidence for inflation.*

There are no living forms of inflation for me to "play with" in a lab! The similarity here is very limited because I have no way to actually 'experiment' with an existing form of inflation.

In fact the analogy is quite precise.

No. If inflation still existed in *SOME* form, then it might be a decent analogy. Since there are no living forms of inflation to experiment with, the similarity is *extremely* limited.

The experiments you can do with genetics and evolution now have no direct bearing on the origin of species.

Maybe not a 'direct' bearing, but the "process" could be easily verified. In fact even macro forms of evolution have been demonstrated in a lab. You're comparing apples to oranges because there are no existing forms of inflation to experiment with unlike living DNA. I can see DNA. I can change DNA. I can see the effects of those changes in the lab. I can't do that with inflation.

It is obviously impossible to ever do controlled experiments on that, because it happened in the past.

But evolution occurs here and now too, not only in the past.

So all we can do is experiments that help confirm our theories, and then apply those theories to the past.

Yes, but the fact we can *confirm out theories* is what makes the difference. I can't change inflation in any way because it doesn't exist anymore!

The same goes for inflation. It happened in the past, if it happened at all, so we can't do experiments on it per se. But we can still do experiments today that help confirm it - for example, we can look at the spectrum of cosmic background neutrinos and see if it's compatible with the predictions of inflation, or we can try to create inflaton particles at accelerators, or we can run computer simulations.

I can't verify the "properties' you assigned to inflation, so I can't actually "test' anything. It's all based on faith. I'm required to accept your assigned properties on faith alone and you intend to change those properties anytime you like.

*On second thought your position is less coherent than that. You maintain that things like dark flows disprove inflation, while simultaneously claiming inflation isn't testable. According to you, inflation is only science if it's ruled out by dark flows. It's just too incoherent to try to sort out.

It's pretty easy to figure out actually. Those "holes" and "flows' in the universe *should have* falsified inflation theory. Period.

Since they don't falsify the theory, and you intend to modify it as necessary, there is no way to falsify the theory. The homogeneous layout of matter was a key prediction of inflation and for years this industry has claimed that feature to be a "successful prediction" of inflation theory. It turn out that inflation theory failed this prediction and yet the theory still won't die a natural death. Inflation theory is therefore unfalsifiable.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, Zig is correct. A model with a bounce like that is simply incompatible with general relativity. I can prove it mathematically, or point you to the proofs in the literature.

It sure works in collier experiments. I'll read any literature you'd like me to read, or listen to a logical mathematical disproof if you want to invest your time in it, but I can't promise you it's going to change my opinion.

I can tell you for sure that my preference for SOME type of 'EU theory" will not change one iota based on the outcome of that particular conversation even if I ultimately agree with you on that specific point. Given the choice between current theory and some other option, I'd take current theory, inflation theory and all, with "dark energy" replaced by EM fields (like in that paper I cited earlier) any day of the week.

 

[sol invictus]

This is like a religious person telling me to learn something about God from the bible.

Any model of inflation is a mathematical theory based on the principles and laws of physics that have been worked out and understood over the last three or four hundred years. It is governed by a set of equations containing a few parameters. Those equations can be used to make (parameter dependent, of course) predictions about large-scale cosmology, and those predictions can then be compared with data.

If you think that's analogous to religion, I have nothing further to say to you.

 

[sol invictus]

It sure works in collier experiments.

You have a collider that creates bouncing universes? Wow.

I'll read any literature you'd like me to read, or listen to a logical mathematical disproof if you want to invest your time in it, but I can't promise you it's going to change my opinion.

Your opinion about what general relativity predicts won't be changed by a mathematical demonstration and proof of what it predicts.

OK, Michael.