Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[W.D.Clinger]

What you're claiming is that Lambda-God theory is just a valid as Lambda-CMD theory?

Just as valid, but stupider.

How did I qualify God energy, or associate it with Lambda? You failed to show any physical cause/effect relationship between X and Y! You simply "assumed" it!

Now you're arguing with Einstein, who's dead, so I'll fill in until someone more qualified chooses to take over.

First of all, you yourself have said it doesn't matter what names are associated with which concepts, so it's hypocritical for you to object to my concrete example of identifying "God energy" with lambda. Furthermore, lambda appears to be the concept you have been attempting to parody with your "God energy" nonsense, even though it is almost equally certain that you have been unaware of that correspondence.

Secondly, the "physical cause/effect relationship between X and Y" is a mathematical consequence of Einstein's field equations (where X presumably means lambda "God energy" and Y means no stable solution of the sort desired by Einstein). If you object to that consequence, you are really objecting to the hypothesis itself, which is Einstein's field equations with lambda.

In that case, your objection to the hypothesis is just another example of your refusal to consider deductions of the form "if X, then Y" until X has been "qualified", whatever that means. As I have noted several times in the last few posts, your refusal to consider such deductions demonstrates your ignorance of falsification, which basically disqualifies you from doing science.

Like the mainstream's variables, there's nothing preventing me from making changes as I go because I never have to physically demonstrate any of it. I can modify the variables and properties of these "God thingies" just like the mainstream creates ad hoc properties for it's variables. Nothing prevents me from using that approach as the mainstream. That's all I was implying.

[....]

I think that the communication problem here is my fault. I'm simply willing to change the numbers when I see fit, much like the mainstream did when they stuffed "dark energy" into those equations when they found out that the universe was accelerating. I am no more limited by my ability to tweak the variables than the mainstream and the number of my variables can change at any time.

That attitude demonstrates your ignorance of the mathematics. The only scalars that appear within the Einstein field equations are the constants ½, 8, Π, G, c, and the parameter Λ. You don't have the power to change ½, 8, Π, G, or c. You can choose whatever value you like for Λ, but no value you choose will give you a non-trivial, static, stable solution for an isotropic, spatially homogeneous, dust-filled universe. You can introduce new numbers into the equation, but that's likely to break the equations so badly that they don't make sense or have no solutions at all, and most of the legitimate things you might try will either leave the equations' meaning unchanged or just change the units.

In short, mathematics prevents you from creating arbitrary properties for the thing you've been calling "God energy". Maybe you can find a way around that, but you'll have to be specific and show your math.

 

[GeeMack]

Of course you do. You have a close, mathematical, emotionally attached, relationship going with three different forms of invisible entities that fail to show up on Earth and are either "dark" or "dead".

No, I don't. You are a liar.

 

[Tim Thompson]

What is "Empirical" Science? VI

By what date shall I expect inflation to show up in a lab experiment?

Whether or not inflation shows up in a laboratory is and always has been irrelevant. See my earlier post What is "Empirical Science"? V (and previous posts cited therein) for a detailed explanation as to why the point is irrelevant.

 

[Tubbythin]

No one then claimed it was made of something exotic that would not show up on Earth.

So?

Does inflation supposedly even exist in nature at this point in time?

I'm not sure this has any more meaning than, for example, does 1973 exist at this point in time.

AFAIK, "dark energy" is completely impotent around objects with mass

The gravitational force between two proton is completely impotent compared to the other forces. Do you have a problem with this?

and therefore it's a no show here on Earth.

So your objection about it not showing up in a lab is meaningless.

AFAIK, inflation is non existent in the universe too. Am I mistaken?

I don't know what you mean.

What evidence do you have that inflation "causes" anything? It's non existent today as far as I know.

You've been pointed in the direction of countless bits of evidence in the past. Read them.

It's not real.

What does that mean (in this context)?

I know the individual that "invented" it in his head without any sort of precedent whatsoever.

Define "invented". It isn't a word I'd use here personally. But with your own language...

Why would you compare something so ad hoc,

It is not in the least bit ad hoc. This incredibly intellectually dishonest.

to something that has already by seen in the lab

It hadn't been seen in the lab. That's the whole point. You really seem to be struggling to comprehend very basic stuff.

and was never an 'ad hoc' assertion in the first place?

I fail to see how it was any less ad hoc.

Nobody may have been able to demonstrate them at that point in time, but nothing prevented that from happening in the future.

So? I have no idea what your point is here.

When will inflation happen again?

Why does it need to happen again? In an evolving Universe some things may only happen once.

 

[Tubbythin]

Of course you do. You have a close, mathematical, emotionally attached, relationship going with three different forms of invisible entities that fail to show up on Earth and are either "dark" or "dead".

Will you please get this death fantasy out of your head. Its starting to get disturbing.

 

[GeeMack]

In short, mathematics prevents you from creating arbitrary properties for the thing you've been calling "God energy". Maybe you can find a way around that, but you'll have to be specific and show your math.

This bears repeating. Show your math. Michael, see what he said there? Show your math.

​

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Indeed.

However, in the 1870s no one knew when (or even if) helium would show up in the lab.

No one then claimed it was made of something exotic that would not show up on Earth.

Are you sure about that?

And why is it relevant?

After all, no one expects (much less claims) that a rich cluster of galaxies will "show up on Earth".

Remember, your point (until you did an "every relevant" on us) was about expectations that there would ever be some independent confirmation.

Does inflation supposedly even exist in nature at this point in time?

Been there, done that.

Do any of the Vendian fauna "even exist in nature at this point in time"?

To quote TT: "Care to tell us all why the laws of the Universe be such that all aspects of physics should be testable in a lab on or before the date of June the 4th 2010? Because that seems to be your argument."

AFAIK, "dark energy" is completely impotent around objects with mass and therefore it's a no show here on Earth.

You seem to have retreated - once again - to the "must show up on Earth" criterion.

I thought you'd agreed that this is a silly requirement, and that a more reasonable one concerns "scaling up".

And I have asked you - repeatedly - to clarify what you mean by this.

Here's my question again:

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)?

From those experiments, how does one (someone other than MM) go about "scaling up" gravity?

I need an answer that is objective, and describes a method that anyone with the necessary minimum of knowledge and capability can follow, and get exactly the same answer (i.e. objective, independent verification).

You may like to take the example of the discovery of Neptune.

AFAIK, inflation is non existent in the universe too. Am I mistaken?

It depends - of course - on what you have in mind re "inflation".

Given the track record - of your use of perfectly good, technical terms in highly idiosyncratic ways - if you'd explain what you have in mind, I'll have a go at answering your question.

Oh, and my "dead inflation deity"? What are you talking about?

What evidence do you have that inflation "causes" anything?

And this answers my question, how, exactly?

It's non existent today as far as I know. It's not real. I know the individual that "invented" it in his head without any sort of precedent whatsoever.

So let's get back to gravity, shall we?

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)?

From those experiments, how does one (someone other than MM) go about "scaling up" gravity?

I need an answer that is objective, and describes a method that anyone with the necessary minimum of knowledge and capability can follow, and get exactly the same answer (i.e. objective, independent verification).

You may like to take the example of the discovery of Neptune.

Why would you compare something so ad hoc, to something that has already by seen in the lab and was never an 'ad hoc' assertion in the first place?

Was helium "seen in the lab" in the 1870s? I don't think so.

Would a 1870s MM have declared helium to be "an 'ad hoc' assertion"? I think so.

Nobody may have been able to demonstrate them at that point in time, but nothing prevented that from happening in the future. When will inflation happen again?

Another "every relevant" twist?

When will the Vendian fauna happen again?

Oh, and may we take it that, by concentrating on inflation, you are OK with CDM and dark energy/lambda?

Specifically, that you acknowledge that your case/argument/point is invalid, wrt CDM?

 

[ben m]

Where did you establish and demonstrate a physical cause/effect relationship between lambda and either:

A) inflation
B) dark energy

Did I? Where? I gave you a very precisely-worded statement of exactly what we establish and demonstrated. The real question is "why did I bother"?

Did you read what I wrote, Michael? Do you agree with the two alternatives? Do you have a third alternative?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just as valid, but stupider.

Like I asked before, "stupider" by who's standards? It's really just a goofy label system no matter how you slice it or dice it.

Now you're arguing with Einstein, who's dead, so I'll fill in until someone more qualified chooses to take over.

I don't think so because he personally eventually set lambda back to zero, he never tried to make it do magic "space expanding" tricks when it was positive, and his lambda did not necessarily require anything exotic. It simply couldn't be gravity at worst case, but everything else, including the EM field was still on the table.

First of all, you yourself have said it doesn't matter what names are associated with which concepts, so it's hypocritical for you to object to my concrete example of identifying "God energy" with lambda.

I "object" because we have not established that the mainstream "interpretation" of redshift is correct, we haven't established if that lambda is related to other more common types of known forces of nature and we haven't established that "new physics" is necessarily required to explain a simple expansion or an acceleration process. You're simply "assuming" all of that in your claim. The term "dark energy" or "God energy" is meaningless because there is no physical cause/effect relationship between either of them and the observation of "acceleration".

Furthermore, lambda appears to be the concept you have been attempting to parody with your "God energy" nonsense,

Not "lambda", just "dark energy". You didn't establish a cause effect relationship between lambda and "god energy" or "dark energy" or "magic energy". I do not object to the mathematical formula, just the way you're trying to abuse it with metaphysical "causes".

Secondly, the "physical cause/effect relationship between X and Y" is a mathematical consequence of Einstein's field equations (where X presumably means lambda "God energy"

You did not (nor did I) demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between lambda and God energy. There's no point in me simply "making up" a term to insert into that lambda, particularly one that defies the speed limits of matter and energy. (Yes I know you have an "expanding", physically undefined "space" thingy happening that again never happens on Earth).

and Y means no stable solution of the sort desired by Einstein).

Einstein's stable Y component might have been satisfied by a known force of nature, like a "spin" of the physical universe and/or a small EM field/repulsion process. At no time did it require new forces of nature. You need to take responsibility for how YOU (and yes I mean you now) are using that lambda and stop ignoring the differences between your use of that lambda and Einstein's use of that same formula and that same lambda. You're doing different things with that lambda and that formula the Einstein himself proposed. He simply used that lambda to attempt to explain a non expanding, no contracting universe and simply set it back to zero when he learned that the universe was expanding.

If you object to that consequence, you are really objecting to the hypothesis itself, which is Einstein's field equations with lambda.

The equations are fine. You are not allowed to stuff them with metaphysical entities however. He wasn't either. He took his lambda and set it back to zero and called his positive lambda his greatest blunder. He copped to his mistakes.

In that case, your objection to the hypothesis is just another example of your refusal to consider deductions of the form "if X, then Y" until X has been "qualified", whatever that means.

That acceleration might and must have a "cause". That cause however is not related to "magic energy", "God energy" or "flying dark energy". It's got nothing to with these things because these things do not exist in nature and there is no evidence that any of them ever existed in nature.

That attitude demonstrates your ignorance of the mathematics. The only scalars that appear within the Einstein field equations are the constants ½, 8, Π, G, c, and the parameter Λ. You don't have the power to change ½, 8, Π, G, or c. You can choose whatever value you like for Λ, but no value you choose will give you a non-trivial, static, stable solution for an isotropic, spatially homogeneous, dust-filled universe.

You're under some important misconceptions here IMO. I am not emotionally attached to trying to describe the universe *STRICTLY* in terms of GR alone to the exclusion of MHD theory and every other electrical possibility under the sun as is the case with the mainstream. I'm not obligated to try to attempt to explain even a static universe with GR alone. It's irrelevant to me personally whether that was a "smart" thing for Einstein to try to do or not. The only thing that I care about is "empirical physics". If you can explain what you observe with only GR, that's great. If not, oh well.

You can introduce new numbers into the equation, but that's likely to break the equations so badly that they don't make sense or have no solutions at all, and most of the legitimate things you might try will either leave the equations' meaning unchanged or just change the units.

I don't have to change anything. I can stuff that lambda full of Godflation and God energy and that CDM full of God matter and I'll have a metaphysical religion going just like the mainstream. If however you cannot tell the difference between religion and science, what's the point of calling it "science"? Neither of us will be able to "predict" anything useful from our claims although I might pull one of your tricks and claim that I can "predict" that most humans will become theists. This game is great as long as nobody has to demonstrate cause/effect relationships in the lab.

In short, mathematics prevents you from creating arbitrary properties for the thing you've been calling "God energy". Maybe you can find a way around that, but you'll have to be specific and show your math.

The problem IMO is that the math isn't the issue or the problem, it's your insertion of metaphysics into the equations that is the problem.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Did I? Where? I gave you a very precisely-worded statement of exactly what we establish and demonstrated. The real question is "why did I bother"?

Did you read what I wrote, Michael? Do you agree with the two alternatives? Do you have a third alternative?

Ya, Godflation and God energy, magic energy, etc. The problem ben is that "anything" and "everything" is a possible "cause" of that lambda. Unless you (or I) can establish a "cause/effect" relationship between that lambda and our invisible friend of choice, it's really a meaningless metaphysical term. All you know for sure (if that) is that the universe is currently expanding and accelerating. You have no evidence that "dark energy did it" anymore than you have evidence that mystical energy did it.

 

[ben m]

The problem ben is that "anything" and "everything" is a possible "cause" of that lambda.

Name one thing.

Did I ever say I knew exactly what the energy was? Seriously, do you read anything anyone says at all?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So?

So? Come on. You don't see any difference between something you *expect* to show up on Earth and something you do not?

I'm not sure this has any more meaning than, for example, does 1973 exist at this point in time.

You're still being incredibly evasive and IMO you're being stubbornly unwilling to embrace the shortcomings of the mainstream theories.

The gravitational force between two proton is completely impotent compared to the other forces. Do you have a problem with this?

No, I have a problem with you ignoring the fact that gravity *does* show up on Earth whereas your inflation friend does not.

Define "invented". It isn't a word I'd use here personally. But with your own language...

Inflation is without precedent. Who before Guth ever used the term "inflation" in reference to astronomy?

It is not in the least bit ad hoc. This incredibly intellectually dishonest.

I think it's horribly intellectually dishonest (and harmful to your own case) to not acknowledge the difference between something that does show up in the lab (like gravity) and something that does not (like your mythical friends). If you were being intellectually honest about it, you'd simply accept that this qualification problem is a significant problem for mainstream theory. Since you won't even accept that it's a problem and you keep comparing mythical inflation to known and measured gravity, it's only hurting your case IMO. You're emotionally attached to the idea and completely unwilling to note and accept it's significant shortcomings IMO.

Why does it need to happen again? In an evolving Universe some things may only happen once.

I can only assume that is sort of like your version of "let there be light". You have to realize how that sounds to a skeptic of the idea don't you? Alfven's "bang" did not require a "creation event". The notion that everything began as a single clump was entirely of your own choosing and therefore inflation is entirely optional. A better question is 'Why does it even have to happen at all"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Name one thing.

Let's start a list:

God energy
Zeus energy
Lambda-lambda mystical energy
Bogus-make-believe-energy
Ad-hoc energy
"Our-mainstream-theory-doesn't-work-right-so-we-stuffed-it-with-metaphysical" energy

How many made up forms of energy would you like?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Whether or not inflation shows up in a laboratory is and always has been irrelevant.

Then Godflation did it.

 

[ben m]

Let's start a list:

God energy
Zeus energy
Lambda energy
Bogus-make-believe-energy
Ad-hoc energy
"Our-mainstream-theory-doesn't-work-right-so-we-stuffed-it-with-metaphysical" energy

How many made up forms of energy would you like?

Can you plug those forms of energy into the stress-energy side of GR and get a prediction for the resulting curvature?

Do you have a mathematical model that shows whether those forms of energy have a constant energy density, vs (e.g.) clumping, or decaying?

What are the couplings between those forms of energy and Standard Model matter?

Are those forms of energy gauge-invariant?

(etc. etc. What I'm saying is: Your idea of "coming up with a hypothesis" is moronic. You come up with a hypothesis in order to have something to do physical calculations and/or experiments on. Do you think the name is the hard part?)

And: As usual, you're complaining about the fact that we have a hypothesis. Did I say anything about hypotheses in this thread? Did you forget those posts already? Here's a quiz: "Physicists have proposed a __________ under which a Chaplygin gas is the dark energy". Fill in the blank: (a) hypothesis, (b) TV game show, (c) law, or (d) personal insult to Michael Mozina, (ETA) or perhaps your standard interpretation (e) an attempted statement of fact that's totally stupid because there aren't data to my satisfaction.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

So? Come on. You don't see any difference between something you *expect* to show up on Earth and something you do not?

I don't expect a rich cluster of galaxies "to show up on Earth".

As I said earlier, I thought you'd agreed that this criterion is silly, and you'd moved on to a more interesting one, concerning "scaling up".

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)?

From those experiments, how does one (someone other than MM) go about "scaling up" gravity?

I need an answer that is objective, and describes a method that anyone with the necessary minimum of knowledge and capability can follow, and get exactly the same answer (i.e. objective, independent verification).

You may like to take the example of the discovery of Neptune.

You're still being incredibly evasive and IMO you're being stubbornly unwilling to embrace the shortcomings of the mainstream theories.

I can't speak for Tubbythin, but I myself have really no clue as to why you write this, in response to his point.

After all, it was you (not Tubbythin) who introduced the criterion of "exist in nature at this point in time", and I, for one, cannot see how this is at all useful.

Why don't you explain what you mean by this criterion, and explain how it is - or even could be - useful?

No, I have a problem with you ignoring the fact that gravity *does* show up on Earth

You keep saying this, but every time I ask you to expand on it (which is often), you do not respond.

Why is that?

Inflation is without precedent. Who before Guth ever used the term "inflation" in reference to astronomy?

One could say the same about "helium", couldn't one?

So it's clearly not "without precedent"!

I think it's horribly intellectually dishonest (and harmful to your own case) to not acknowledge the difference between something that does show up in the lab (like gravity) and something that does not (like your mythical friends).

Why?

After all, it's only you, MM, who seems to think this "something that does show up in the lab" is relevant. And since Tubbythin (AFAIK) has never said this criterion has any particular relevance to how one does science, it can hardly be intellectually dishonest of him, now can it?

The most you could say is that he doesn't understand why you keep insisting on using this criterion.

Oh, and what "mythical friends" does Tubbythin have? I don't recall him having mentioned any such.

If you were being intellectually honest about it, you'd simply accept that this qualification problem is a significant problem for mainstream theory.

Trouble is, MM, that "this qualification problem" exists only in your own mind (as far as anyone can tell), and you have failed - dismally - to explain what it is (in a way that others can understand).

Since you won't even accept that it's a problem

We're going round and round again (lather, wash, rinse, repeat); I doubt that he could "accept that it's a problem", if only because he has no idea what you're talking about.

Why not take a break, and write up your "qualification" concept clearly.

You might consider the following as a concrete way to approach it:

What, in the MM worldview, constitutes "demonstrat[ing] it exists here on Earth"? Specifically, what are the experiments which "demonstrate" (in the MM sense) that "gravity" exists (here on Earth)?

From those experiments, how does one (someone other than MM) go about "scaling up" gravity?

I need an answer that is objective, and describes a method that anyone with the necessary minimum of knowledge and capability can follow, and get exactly the same answer (i.e. objective, independent verification).

You may like to take the example of the discovery of Neptune.

and you keep comparing mythical inflation to known and measured gravity, it's only hurting your case IMO.

Yes, but as your responses to W.D.Clinger's posts (and others, earlier) clearly show, you have a rather, um, strange understanding of "gravity".

Given that misunderstanding, is it at all surprising that you can't (or won't?) follow the explanations for how inflation may be related to gravity?

You're emotionally attached to the idea and completely unwilling to note and accept it's significant shortcomings IMO.

Your O has been clearly stated, a great many times.

However, it seems that no one (but you) can understand it (an essential first step towards accepting it, right?).

Why is that?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

And: As usual, you're complaining about the fact that we have a hypothesis. Did I say anything about hypotheses in this thread? Did you forget those posts already? Here's a quiz: "Physicists have proposed a __________ under which a Chaplygin gas is the dark energy". Fill in the blank: (a) hypothesis, (b) TV game show, (c) law, or (d) personal insult to Michael Mozina.

[MM mode]

But ben, don't you *acknowledge* and *embrace* the fact that "a Chaplygin gas" is a mythical friend/metaphysical deity/mathematical god-did-it-in-the-gaps/mystical ad hoc entity/{roll your own}, which no one can say when it will show up *in the lab*/"on Earth"!

[/MM mode]

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I "object" because we have not established that the mainstream "interpretation" of redshift is correct

But how, in the MM worldview, could anyone do this?

What criteria do you, MM, use - actually use, not might use if you a put some time and energy into studying it - to determine if any ""interpretation" of redshift is correct"?

FYI: I do not expect that you will actually answer this question, but I think others may find it interesting (to contemplate how you would answer it, if nothing else).

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I don't think so because he personally eventually set lambda back to zero, he never tried to make it do magic "space expanding" tricks when it was positive,

Incorrect. The whole point of Einstein's lambda was to serve as a repulsive force that could counter the force of gravity and allow a static (albeit unstable) solution.

That has been explained to you quite a few times, and I have quoted historical documents that confirm those explanations. Your determination to repeat your false statement is yet another sign that you are not even attempting to argue in good faith.

I "object" because we have not established that the mainstream "interpretation" of redshift is correct, we haven't established if that lambda is related to other more common types of known forces of nature and we haven't established that "new physics" is necessarily required to explain a simple expansion or an acceleration process. You're simply "assuming" all of that in your claim. The term "dark energy" or "God energy" is meaningless because there is no physical cause/effect relationship between either of them and the observation of "acceleration".

That's another mixture of false and/or irrelevant claims.

First of all, my own personal interpretation of the Robertson-Walker solutions for the Einstein field equations is almost entirely mathematical. I am aware of the mainstream interpretation of redshift, et cetera, but all such interpretations are irrelevant to the mathematical consequences of the equations themselves. Apart from the standard meaning of "dust-filled" and perhaps a couple of like phrases, I have made no physical assumptions; to me, it's mainly just mathematics.

Secondly, you persist in attributing to me (and to others) claims I (and we) have not made. (Indeed, you have done that so often that it has become extremely hard to believe your misrepresentations are not deliberate.) I have been using the Einstein field equations to look into the consequences of your claims concerning the nature and consequences of lambda God energy, and have found your claims to be false. While I was at it, I have considered the claims made about lambda by those who have been trying to set you straight, and have found their claims to be true.

Looking only at the mathematics, without getting involved with the physics at all, you've been talking nonsense while they've been talking sense.

Not "lambda", just "dark energy". You didn't establish a cause effect relationship between lambda and "god energy" or "dark energy" or "magic energy". I do not object to the mathematical formula, just the way you're trying to abuse it with metaphysical "causes".

Not guilty. As noted above, I have been examining the consequences of lambda God energy in Einstein's field equations, and have found your claims to be incorrect while the claims of those who have been trying to set you straight have been correct.

You did not (nor did I) demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between lambda and God energy.

Correct. There has been no need to establish any cause/effect relationship, because your "God energy" has never been anything more than a pejorative substitute for lambda.

There's no point in me simply "making up" a term to insert into that lambda, particularly one that defies the speed limits of matter and energy.

As several people have tried to explain to you, nothing goes faster than light, even in expanding universe models (such as the de Sitter universe) where the expansion is faster than light. That is a mathematical fact for which no empirical support is needed. The only problem here is your inability to comprehend the mathematics of the equations that contain the lambda God energy term you've been pretending to discuss.

Einstein's stable Y component might have been satisfied by a known force of nature, like a "spin" of the physical universe and/or a small EM field/repulsion process. At no time did it require new forces of nature. You need to take responsibility for how YOU (and yes I mean you now) are using that lambda and stop ignoring the differences between your use of that lambda and Einstein's use of that same formula and that same lambda. You're doing different things with that lambda and that formula the Einstein himself proposed. He simply used that lambda to attempt to explain a non expanding, no contracting universe and simply set it back to zero when he learned that the universe was expanding.

You're just making stuff up. All I have been doing is checking out the mathematical consequences of Einstein's (and yes I mean Einstein's) lambda term. Mathematically, it's exactly the same lambda term for me as it was for Einstein. I'm not doing anything with it that Einstein didn't authorize by putting it into his equation. And the only reasons I've had for checking it out are:

1. You have claimed lambda's effect is not repulsive.
2. Others have told me that lambda can be identified with the dark energy of recent cosmological models, and has mathematical properties that explain certain observations while predicting others.

In checking that out, I have learned that your claims are false, but the others' claims are true.

The equations are fine. You are not allowed to stuff them with metaphysical entities however.

If the Einstein field equations are fine, then you can have no objection to my rudimentary investigation of their consequences. I have not stuffed them with "metaphysical entities", however; that's just another example of your poisonously pejorative rhetorical style.

I don't have to change anything. I can stuff that lambda full of Godflation and God energy and that CDM full of God matter and I'll have a metaphysical religion going just like the mainstream. If however you cannot tell the difference between religion and science, what's the point of calling it "science"? Neither of us will be able to "predict" anything useful from our claims

One difference between religion and science is that science makes testable predictions. You, for example, have made claims about the role of lambda that are inconsistent with the mathematical meaning of lambda in Einstein's field equations. That means your claims are false. Others have made claims that hold up under scrutiny. That doesn't mean their claims are true, but it does mean their claims should be taken far more seriously than yours.

The problem IMO is that the math isn't the issue or the problem, it's your insertion of metaphysics into the equations that is the problem.

No, the real problem here is that I happen to understand the math just enough to test your claims, but you don't understand the math well enough to distinguish mathematics from metaphysics.

 

[Tubbythin]

So? Come on. You don't see any difference between something you *expect* to show up on Earth and something you do not?

I can see a difference. I just don't see a problem. And until you can explain why this is a problem then we're not going to go anywhere.

You're still being incredibly evasive and IMO you're being stubbornly unwilling to embrace the shortcomings of the mainstream theories.

What are they? So far you've made a lot of noise about them not showing up in a lab but completely failed to make a case for these being in the least bit damaging. Why should the laws of physics be such that they can be understood and relevant quantities measured from experiments the same scale as that of human labs? What cosmological significance does the scale of human labs have? I can't see any.

No, I have a problem with you ignoring the fact that gravity *does* show up on Earth whereas your inflation friend does not.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm quite happy with it. I just don't see why this is a problem. Why should the laws of physics be such that they can be understood and relevant quantities measured from experiments the same scale as that of human labs?

Inflation is without precedent.

Meaning?

Who before Guth ever used the term "inflation" in reference to astronomy?

Well everything is without precedent at some point... unless your suggesting gravity was always called gravity even prior to the existence of humans. Or something else as ridiculous. You could make the same argument with any term in science.

I think it's horribly intellectually dishonest (and harmful to your own case) to not acknowledge the difference between something that does show up in the lab (like gravity) and something that does not (like your mythical friends).

1) I don'tt have mythical friends. Its intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise in order to avoid making a science base argument.
2) I freely acknowldege there is a difference. But I fail to see the significance. Why should the laws of physics be such that they can be understood and relevant quantities measured from experiments the same scale as that of human labs?

If you were being intellectually honest about it, you'd simply accept that this qualification problem is a significant problem for mainstream theory.

You've repeatedly failed to explain why it is a problem. Why should the laws of physics be such that they can be understood and relevant quantities measured from experiments the same scale as that of human labs?

Since you won't even accept that it's a problem and you keep comparing mythical inflation to known and measured gravity, it's only hurting your case IMO.

You won't explain why its a problem. Specifically, you won't explain why the laws of physics be such that they can be understood and relevant quantities measured from experiments the same scale as that of human labs? Moreover, your repeated use of pejorative terms to describe these things you completely fail to understand make you look like your incapable of making an actual scientific argument. If you could make a scientific argument you wouldn't have to resort to such childish behaviour.

You're emotionally attached to the idea

I have no emotional attachment to it whatsoever. I may have an attachment to my own work but that has nothing to do with cosmology.

and completely unwilling to note and accept it's significant shortcomings IMO.

I'm well aware LCDM isn't the complete theory of cosmology. Your attempts to highlight its shortcomings have, however, been an unmitigated failure. Rather than point to relevant data you've resorted pejorative language and bizarre and ridiculous chuntering about how something has never been seen in a lab. Your repeated refusal to explain why you think the laws of physics be such that they can be understood and relevant quantities measured from experiments the same scale as that of human labs is extremel telling.

I can only assume that is sort of like your version of "let there be light".

Then you're struggling with fairly basic reading comprehension.

You have to realize how that sounds to a skeptic of the idea don't you?

What? You completely misunderstood my point (or chose to "misunderstand" it). This sentence doesn't even make sense in response to what I said.

Alfven's "bang" did not require a "creation event".

That's nice for him. What relevance does this have?

The notion that everything began as a single clump was entirely of your own choosing and therefore inflation is entirely optional.

You really know nothing about LCDM.

A better question is 'Why does it even have to happen at all"?

You mean you don't have the slightest idea why inflation is in the LCDM?