Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[r-j]

Has this been mentioned before?

But iron in the quasar, known as APM 8279+5255, was three times more plentiful than in our solar system, which puzzled astronomers.

"The solar system formed just 5 [billion] years ago, so it should contain more iron than the quasar, which formed over 13.5 [billion] years ago," ESA said in a statement.

By looking at distant objects, scientists in a sense look back in time. The light from APM 8279+5255, for example, takes 13.5 billion years to reach Earth, so we see it as looks 13.5 billion years ago.

Presumably, the quasar should look very young in the early cosmic snapshot, but due to its iron-rich content, it looks much more mature.

The team, which includes researchers at the Max-Planck Institute in Germany, said that the most likely explanation for the mystery is that the quasar and hence the universe are older than expected.

They added that perhaps undiscovered "iron factories" are sprinkled through the early universe, spitting out the metal through an unknown physical process.

"This is the less likely solution in my opinion," Jansen said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/10/universe.age/index.html

 

[sol invictus]

Things - objects, processes - have essences, or spirits. And once a correct characterisation of the essence (or spirit) of a thing is made, we have mastered the universe (or at least that part of it under the influence of the essences and spirits we have successfully identified).

The primary method for identifying the essence (or spirit) of a thing is visual inspection - you observe how it behaves with your eyes.

Now consider "gravity" ... "attraction" is its essence (note that "attraction" and "repulsion" are separate essences, as are "acceleration" and "deceleration").

In MM's worldview, "empirical" means something like "determine a thing's essences (or spirits) by visual inspection", and the universe is divided into Heaven (or the Heavens) and Earth (or "in the lab").

To "qualify" something is to determine if the thing behaves true to its essence (or spirit) on Earth.

So because the essence of "gravity" is "attraction", and because high-z Ia SNe observations point to "repulsion", "gravity" cannot possibly cause it.

However, "EM fields"^^ have both "attraction" and "repulsion" essences (or spirits). Therefore "EM fields" very likely cause the observed phenomenon.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that post, drd.

 

[Michael Mozina]

q e d

That's all you have to say?

PS, you have never demonstrated any sort of "cause/effect" relationship between any of your three invisible things in relationship to mass or acceleration. You've simply handwaved at the sky and claimed "my trilogy of invisible friends did it"!

All religions have "leaps of faith". Your brand requires three leaps of faith. I have to "have faith" (in spite of lab failures by the way) that an exotic brand of matter exists that is five to ten time more abundant than the dirt in my backyard, larger in size than a neutrino which we have already detected, but has eluded our scientists in the lab now for the last 200 years?

I have to "have faith" that some exotic density defying dead guthflation, hairy inflation, two field inflation, or some other brand of inflation did it. I have to "have faith" that 70 percent of the universe is composed of some exotic brand of energy that fails to show up around objects with mass! The whole thing is pathetically useless in determining anything that happens here on Earth or ever will happen here on Earth. It's the ultimate useless woo with pretty red metaphysical lipstick.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think I can answer this (MM is free to jump in and qualify my answer).

Imagine viewing the world as Aristotle and his contemporaries did^.

You missed a couple of points IMO, but it was an interesting little story.

You might propose an expanding near singularity that is surrounded by a large near vacuum, which is then encompassed in a much larger mass body that surrounds the whole thing. It that scenario the mass object in the center might indeed be accelerated by the external mass. You missed an an important essence of gravity

You also missed the mark on the math part being indistinguishable from magic. If you're talking about math related to an EM field, I can physically measure the movements of plasma in lab, test your math formulas and see if they match the essence of the plasma movement. It's not a faith based form of math.

Likewise if we're talking about gravity, we can physically test it's ability to accelerate other objects of mass. We can test to see how that acceleration might vary in different conditions. Again, we can compare the math to the physical world and see that it works. Nothing requires 'faith' on my part.

It's only when we get to Guthflation (we should call it that I suppose since there are now several metaphysical brands to choose from), dark energy and your mythical brand of exotic matter that "leaps of faith" become required.

If you could show any sort of 'cause/effect' relationship between your invisible forces/masses we could in fact test their various 'properties/essences'. What you're essentially doing is making up the "essences/properties" in a purely ad hoc manner as you point at the sky. You're simply 'making up" a whole mythological external heaven's that are completely and utterly unrelated to the earth. Us mere mortals are only privy to a lowly 4% of what exists in the heavens and can never experience the essence of the heavens here on Earth.

Guthflation had no precedent DRD. He simply handwaved in a mathematical metaphysical mythos into an otherwise perfectly good physics formula! You're doing exactly the same thing with your 'dark energy' friend. You're doing it again with the exotic matter gig. It's like everything you don't understand must be "exotic" or "special" or "mythological' in nature!

I'm sorry but your brand of "science" isn't even science at all. It's pure woo, like astrology. Like astrology you throw in some physical explanation (like movement of planets) and a little math to justify your claims. Like astrology however it's completely 'untestable" in any controlled experiment. You can't predict the outcome of *anything* that might happen in a controlled test using any of that 96% of the universe you claim is "out there somewhere".

I'm sorry, but this is just silly in the sense that you refuse to even acknowledge that you've never demonstrated any cause/effect relationships between "acceleration" and "infatlion" or "dark energy", nor have you demonstrated any cause/effect relationships between "exotic matter" and gravity because you've never demonstrated that exotic matter exists, let alone whether it's "hot or cold" matter! The whole thing is purely "make believe" with make believe entities galore.

When you demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between lambda an your invisible friends, let me know. Until they you might as well call them godflation, god energy and god matter and be honest about the fact it's a 'religion'.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Remember Arthur C. Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"?

Here we have a rational explanation for much of what MM has written: to him, mathematics is just such a "sufficiently advanced technology".

I want to be sure to set you straight on this point again DRD. Mathematics when it is applied to real things and real objects is definitely distinguishable from magic. Just look at my computer. I can take them apart. Look at the parts inside the box. Play with them. I can duplicate them in a lab on my own. I can replicate the technology, change it, etc.

When however you apply math to woo, all you end up with is pretty woo. Astrology and Lambda-CDM theory are two perfect examples of pretty looking woo.

Astrologers often "dress up" their woo by asking you for your birthday. They claim they "can't figure out" your astrological information without it. They claim to need to know where all the planets were on your birth to be able to "predict" anything about your future. In the lab however the "cause/effect" relationship between that mathematical alignment of planets and that "prediction' they come up with can never be verified or falsified to show any useful correlation.

Likewise your lambda theory is entirely incapable of predicting anything useful on Earth. It's the ultimate woo with pretty but entirely useless math. I can't "take it apart" because it's not based on a real thing. Nothing runs on 'dark energy'. No product in existence uses inflation. No experiment shows exotic brands of matter exist. The whole thing is in fact entirely indistinguishable from magic because it's based on three forms of magic! It's like applying math to magic inflation, magic energy and magic matter. All you have is magic math woo.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Coming back to this.

If this is all that there is, to what you mean by ""real" physics", then astronomy cannot be ""real" physics", nor can it use ""real" physics".

But as you have a website devoted to the Sun, and as you (presumably) think ""real" physics" can be used to study the Sun, then there must be more to it than this (unless, of course, you accept that what you have written is founded on an extraordinary logical inconsistency).

Elsewhere you've written a few words on how the study of the Sun is, indeed, ""real" physics". IIRC, you had some vague idea about the acceptability of "scaling up" from lab experiments.

Would you care to say more about this?

Specifically, what are the MM rules for determining acceptability of scaling up, when it comes to ""real" physics"-based explanations of astronomical observations?

Real things show up in real experiments DRD. Your exotic matter failed to show up in the lab. Did you not notice that failure? What did you intend to do about it in terms of questioning your own beliefs?

When did "dark energy" ever do anything "real" on Earth? When did you ever establish a cause/effect relationship between "acceleration" and "dark energy"? How about "acceleration" and "inflation"?

The CDM part of Lambda-CDM has been an epic fail in the lab DRD. You also failed to show any correlation between lambda and inflation or dark energy. You just handwaved those magical entities into those formulas. The math isn't magic. Your invisible friends are indistinguishable from magic, at least in the lab.

 

[GeeMack]

That's all you have to say?

Nobody has any responsibility to teach you this stuff in a way that you can understand. That would be your job. That you are unable and/or unwilling to do it isn't anyone else's problem.

 

[GeeMack]

I want to be sure to set you straight on this point again DRD. Mathematics when it is applied to real things and real objects is definitely distinguishable from magic.

Your qualifications to do math at a level necessary to balance your own checkbook has been challenged and you have been wholly unable to demonstrate that you possess those qualifications. Your opinion on what math is relevant or how it should be applied is your unsupported, biased, and unsubstantiated opinion. And in this case, as almost always, it's wrong.

 

[sol invictus]

You missed a couple of points IMO, but it was an interesting little story.

<SNIP>

Michael, I don't know about anyone else, but I've stopped reading anything past the first line of your posts. That's happened before - the breaking point this time was that ridiculous argument over Einstein's lambda versus the lambda in modern LCDM cosmology. We quickly arrived at a point where you were denying really basic facts, facts that don't even rely on any understanding of physics or math, facts that can be verified in a moment from any one of thousands of sources.

In other words we reached a point directly analogous to the parable I asked you about, the argument between a linguist and an uninformed Australian over whether French or Japanese is spoken in France. The only reasonable response at that point is to ignore, and I'm afraid that's where you are again.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You missed a couple of points IMO, but it was an interesting little story.

You might propose an expanding near singularity that is surrounded by a large near vacuum, which is then encompassed in a much larger mass body that surrounds the whole thing. It that scenario the mass object in the center might indeed be accelerated by the external mass. You missed an an important essence of gravity

Doesn't work, MM.

By your own rules, "an expanding near singularity" is not "real things and real objects", it doesn't "show up in real experiments", it has "failed to show up in the lab".

You also missed the mark on the math part being indistinguishable from magic. If you're talking about math related to an EM field, I can physically measure the movements of plasma in lab, test your math formulas and see if they match the essence of the plasma movement.

I have no doubt that tusenfem can do this, and, very likely lots of others too (ben, Zig, Tubbythin, ...).

However, there is no objective evidence to support the hypothesis that MM can do any of it.

Let's go back to a question I've asked you several times: explain what "an EM field" is, comprehensively, without reference to Maxwell's equations, QED, or some variant thereof.

Likewise if we're talking about gravity, we can physically test it's ability to accelerate other objects of mass. We can test to see how that acceleration might vary in different conditions. Again, we can compare the math to the physical world and see that it works. Nothing requires 'faith' on my part.

I have no doubt that sol can do this, and, very likely lots of others too (ben, Zig, Tubbythin, ...).

However, there is no objective evidence to support the hypothesis that MM can do any of it.

A variant of the above: explain what "gravity" is, comprehensively, without reference to GR.

Oh, and remember the many posts on GR? Like the one PS wrote?

When "we compare the math to the physical world", we do indeed "see that it works"; ergo, CDM and dark energy (lambda) are just as real as Neptune.

That you cannot understand this is consistent with your apparent Aristotelian/animist worldview (in this case, that "attraction" is the essence of "gravity").

If you could show any sort of 'cause/effect' relationship between your invisible forces/masses we could in fact test their various 'properties/essences'. What you're essentially doing is making up the "essences/properties" in a purely ad hoc manner as you point at the sky.

Yes, we all know, by now, that that's how you understand it.

And what I have done - maybe - is produce an explanation for why you understand it that way.

The "invisible forces/masses" are magic to you, made up "in a purely ad hoc manner", because you do not understand GR (or, more accurately, the EFE).

You're simply 'making up" a whole mythological external heaven's that are completely and utterly unrelated to the earth. Us mere mortals are only privy to a lowly 4% of what exists in the heavens and can never experience the essence of the heavens here on Earth.

Yes, we all know, by now, that that's how you understand it.

And what I have done - maybe - is produce an explanation for why you understand it that way.

What seems to you to be "completely and utterly unrelated to the earth" and something you think "can never experience the essence of the heavens here on Earth" is only that way because you do not understand GR (or, more accurately, the EFE).

I'm sorry but your brand of "science" isn't even science at all. It's pure woo, like astrology. Like astrology you throw in some physical explanation (like movement of planets) and a little math to justify your claims. Like astrology however it's completely 'untestable" in any controlled experiment. You can't predict the outcome of *anything* that might happen in a controlled test using any of that 96% of the universe you claim is "out there somewhere".

Yes, we all know, by now, that that's how you understand it.

And what I have done - maybe - is produce an explanation for why you understand it that way.

What seems to you to be "completely 'untestable" in any controlled experiment" is only that way because you do not understand GR (or, more accurately, the EFE).

I'm sorry, but this is just silly in the sense that you refuse to even acknowledge that you've never demonstrated any cause/effect relationships between "acceleration" and "infatlion" or "dark energy", nor have you demonstrated any cause/effect relationships between "exotic matter" and gravity because you've never demonstrated that exotic matter exists, let alone whether it's "hot or cold" matter! The whole thing is purely "make believe" with make believe entities galore.

Yes, we all know, by now, that that's how you understand it.

And what I have done - maybe - is produce an explanation for why you understand it that way.

What seems to you to be a lack of "demonstrated cause/effect relationships between "acceleration" and "infatlion" or "dark energy"" and no "demonstrated any cause/effect relationships between "exotic matter" and gravity" is only that way because you do not understand GR (or, more accurately, the EFE).

When you demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between lambda an your invisible friends, let me know. Until they you might as well call them godflation, god energy and god matter and be honest about the fact it's a 'religion'.

Yes, we all know, by now, that that's how you understand it.

And what I have done - maybe - is produce an explanation for why you understand it that way.

What seems to you to be an inability to "demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between lambda an your invisible friends" is only that way because you do not understand GR (or, more accurately, the EFE).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Remember Arthur C. Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"?

Here we have a rational explanation for much of what MM has written: to him, mathematics is just such a "sufficiently advanced technology".

I want to be sure to set you straight on this point again DRD. Mathematics when it is applied to real things and real objects is definitely distinguishable from magic. Just look at my computer. I can take them apart. Look at the parts inside the box. Play with them.

No doubt.

I can duplicate them in a lab on my own. I can replicate the technology, change it, etc.

There are, without a doubt, JREF members who can do this.

However, there is no objective evidence to support the hypothesis that MM can do any of it.

When however you apply math to woo, all you end up with is pretty woo. Astrology and Lambda-CDM theory are two perfect examples of pretty looking woo.

Likewise your lambda theory is entirely incapable of predicting anything useful on Earth. It's the ultimate woo with pretty but entirely useless math. I can't "take it apart" because it's not based on a real thing. Nothing runs on 'dark energy'. No product in existence uses inflation. No experiment shows exotic brands of matter exist. The whole thing is in fact entirely indistinguishable from magic because it's based on three forms of magic! It's like applying math to magic inflation, magic energy and magic matter. All you have is magic math woo.

Yes, we all know, by now, that that's how you understand it.

And what I have done - maybe - is produce an explanation for why you understand it that way.

To repeat one of my many questions you have never even responded to, much less answered: can you explain what "gravity" is, comprehensively, without reference to GR?

The reason why you think "lambda theory is entirely incapable of predicting anything useful on Earth" is due your lack of understanding of GR (or, more accurately, the EFE). Specifically, because the math of GR is indistinguishable from magic, to you, of course you think CDM, dark energy (lambda), and inflation are magic.

 

[Tim Thompson]

XENON100 and Dark Matter: The Real Story II

It's hard to see a reason to continue the discussion. When was the last time that Mozina came up with anything new or different? It's the same old endless loop of "facts" that are not true, laced with a profound ignorance of science, or even how to think intelligently. Mozina has reached his own intellectual dead end, and this discussion has done pretty much the same thing.

Likewise your lambda theory is entirely incapable of predicting anything useful on Earth.

This is absolutely, 100% irrelevant.

We quickly arrived at a point where you were denying really basic facts, facts that don't even rely on any understanding of physics or math, facts that can be verified in a moment from any one of thousands of sources.

Your exotic matter failed to show up in the lab. Did you not notice that failure? What did you intend to do about it in terms of questioning your own beliefs?

This is a factually false statement. It is not true that dark matter failed to show up in a lab. Rather, it is true that a narrow range of possible dark matter particles, appear to remain undetected in one particular experiment. The results of that experiment have no relation at all to other possible dark matter particles which would not have shown up in that experiment, even if they were common in that very same lab. Furthermore, the specific results of that experiment are in serious dispute by other scientists; Mozina knows this, but choses to ignore the debate, for fear that it might threaten his religious preconception. This is all outlined with references in my post from just a few days ago, XENON 100 and Dark Matter: The Real Story.

As Sol points out, Mozina is so helplessly pathetic that he cannot get the facts themselves right, let alone come up with an intelligent interpretation of the facts when he does manage too get them straight.

 

[GeeMack]

It's hard to see a reason to continue the discussion. When was the last time that Mozina came up with anything new or different?

Uh, 2005?

 

[ben m]

Real things show up in real experiments DRD.

You ignored my direct, repeated question. "Real experiments" means only "experiments which humans have actually been able to build using 2010 technology and budgets". How does Nature know what our budget limits are? Did the Big Bang sort through the list of possible particles, and decide "Oh, I had better not include a 1000 GeV SUSY neutralino---that would cost over $5B to detect and would therefore be MM-unempirical---so I will stick to quarks and leptons."? Seriously, Michael, how do you think this worked?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection Redirected II

I mistakenly posted this comment to the iron sun thread, but meant to put it here: On matters of magnetic reconnection raised on this thread, since they are arguably off-topic, I have responded with re-direction to the magnetic reconnection thread: Magnetic Reconnection Redux XIII.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You see, no one (other than you) knows what ""real" physics" is (and you are most reluctant to explain),

Oh I've explained that "real physics" shows up in the lab. EM fields show up in the lab. They are "real" and have a real and measurable physical effect on real things. Likewise gravity is "real physics". It's not shy around the lab. Gravity shows up all the time, right on command. Neutrinos are also "real". They have a known empirical source. They have been detected in empirical experiments on Earth. They have a real effect on real things.

Coming back to this.

If this is all that there is, to what you mean by ""real" physics", then astronomy cannot be ""real" physics", nor can it use ""real" physics".

But as you have a website devoted to the Sun, and as you (presumably) think ""real" physics" can be used to study the Sun, then there must be more to it than this (unless, of course, you accept that what you have written is founded on an extraordinary logical inconsistency).

Elsewhere you've written a few words on how the study of the Sun is, indeed, ""real" physics". IIRC, you had some vague idea about the acceptability of "scaling up" from lab experiments.

Would you care to say more about this?

Specifically, what are the MM rules for determining acceptability of scaling up, when it comes to ""real" physics"-based explanations of astronomical observations?

Bump.

MM responded to this, but did not answer the key question.

Here it is again:

What are the MM rules for determining acceptability of scaling up, when it comes to ""real" physics"-based explanations of astronomical observations?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, I don't know about anyone else, but I've stopped reading anything past the first line of your posts. That's happened before - the breaking point this time was that ridiculous argument over Einstein's lambda versus the lambda in modern LCDM cosmology.

No matter how you try and rationalize it sol, Einstein's use of lambda resulted in nothing more than a static, non expanding, non contracting universe. Lambda was not causing faster than than light "space" expansion, or faster than light spacetime expansion. That's your modern mythology, and it has nothing to do with Einstein's use of that formula or lambda.

We quickly arrived at a point where you were denying really basic facts, facts that don't even rely on any understanding of physics

What "physics"? You epically failed to produce any cause/effect demonstration between your invisible friends and that lambda sol. Guth's use of "guthflation" was purely ad hoc. There was no precedent for inflation prior to Guth. He simply "made it up" and slapped on some math. Since then you've created a ton of new metaphysical brands of inflation. There's hairy inflation, two field inflation and a host of other "brands" of inflation. The metaphysical list is endless because the products are all "made up" based on mathematical "properties" that you arbitrarily assign to your invisible friends.

or math, facts that can be verified in a moment from any one of thousands of sources.

Your math cannot demonstrate "inflation" did it, or "Godflation" did it, or "magicflation did it". You failed to qualify anything sol. As a result you have a mathematical mythos and nothing "qualified" in any way.

In other words we reached a point directly analogous to the parable I asked you about, the argument between a linguist and an uninformed Australian over whether French or Japanese is spoken in France. The only reasonable response at that point is to ignore, and I'm afraid that's where you are again.

You are constantly ignoring the basic weakness in your theory and it has nothing to with math. The weakness is the point where you fail to demonstrate any physical/empirical cause/effect link between that lambda in that formula, and your made up ad hoc entity. You simply gave the invisible friend in your pocket a host of make believe superpowers and then pointed at the sky! You *epically* and I mean *epically* failed to demonstrate any cause/effect demonstrated link between your invisible made up friends and any other make believe entity with exactly the same pilfered math.

If you were putting an EM field into that lambda, that's one thing. If however you insist on stuffing made up thingamabobs into that lambda, all you've got is magic woo with make believe "properties".

I guess the basic problem is humans need a "beginning". They don't relate to the concepts of infinite or eternal very well. They need to have a "creation event" to wrap their head around. They have a "prophetic" and intellectual need to have a begging and and ending. They therefore feel compelled to create these things based on invisible forces of nature if necessary. That's really what it boils down to in this case too sol. You've shown no cause/effect link between your invisible entities, and the lambda in that formula. To fit that lambda in the formula, you simply created two superfriends. You endowed them with superpowers galore, and you gave them nifty names. About all you did however is create woo out of what was once an empirical theory, where "make believe" becomes more important than physics, and more important that physical tests.

You also epically failed to note the xenon100 failure of the CDM side of your claims. Where exactly should we be trying to find your invisible friend now? It seems to exist in the ever shrinking gaps, just like every other metaphysical entity. How much gap is left exactly?

I'm sorry sol, but lambda-cdm theory is not "science". It's woo. It's woo with three forms of metaphysical entities, none of which have ever been shown to actually have any effect on anything in a controlled experiment. The whole thing is woo with math. There's definitely nothing "physical' about your invisible friends and gaps keep shrinking all the time.

I suppose I'm most disappointed that you never even acknowledged the recent failures of the CDM side of your theory. That's simply sad IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Bump.

MM responded to this, but did not answer the key question.

Here it is again:

What are the MM rules for determining acceptability of scaling up, when it comes to ""real" physics"-based explanations of astronomical observations?

If you can demonstrate it exists here on Earth, say gravity or an EM field, you are welcome to scale it to whatever size you like. It will of course have physical ramifications when you scale such a thing that should correlate to what we might expect based on our experiments here on Earth. In other words if you scaled Birkeland's work in the lab, it would have physical ramification as it relates to ionization states of the atmosphere, discharge processes in the atmosphere, etc. I don't even have a philosophical problem with the concept of a "black hole" provided you aren't emotionally attached to the concept of infinite density.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is a factually false statement. It is not true that dark matter failed to show up in a lab. Rather, it is true that a narrow range of possible dark matter particles, appear to remain undetected in one particular experiment.

So your whole argument now boils down to a "dark matter of the ever shrinking gaps", is that it Tim? How much "gap" is left Tim? Where *exactly* (stop being so dodgy) will we find your invisible friend?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If falling flat on your face is all it takes, then you're doing just fine.


In the course of this and other threads, many people (including quite a few experts) have explained tangible, empirical cause/effect relationships between the laws of physics (including "that formula") and various experiments and observations in physics and astronomy.

To see why you have learned so little, we need look no farther than the highlighted sentence.

Your lack of understanding has never stopped you from declaring that explanations of a formula in standard textbooks, scientific papers, or JREF postings are incorrect. Indeed, your lack of understanding has enabled you to believe that a formula (or image or experimental result) you don't understand means whatever you want to believe.

For some reason, however, you have accused me and quite a few other people of taking refuge in some kind of "religion", "driven by pure faith" in a "trilogy" (did you mean "trinity"?) of "invisible friends".

The highlighted sentence expresses one of your core beliefs, but you could not be more wrong. When discussing the implications of some proposed or well-accepted law of physics, it really does help to understand the mathematical statement of that law.

IMO you missed the whole point of my sentence Mr. Spock and everything else I said in that post. I do not need to understand every relevant mathematical equation to "use" a transmission or a whole car for that matter. I do not need to understand every math formula related to a computer to use one. I do not need to understand anything about electricity in terms of the math to benefit from electricity. These things produce tangible goods.

Inflation isn't tangible or real, therefore there are no tangible goods that run on inflation. Dark energy isn't tangible or real and therefore nothing tangible or real runs on dark energy. "Cold dark matter" isn't real and the gaps are shrinking all the time!

There are no "observations in physics" where inflation is necessary or dark energy is justified or where cold dark matter has been seen. Only when the mainstream points at the sky does anyone try to justify these claims. To every other branch of physics, it's absolutely no skin off anyone's nose if none of these trio of mainstream invisible friends are real or exist. It's only their "religion" that requires them to exist in order for their theory to be considered "science". See a problem here yet? You've/they've created a creation mythos based on not just one brand of metaphysics (let there be light), but three of them!