No your point is quite clear, you want to claim that PC/EU assertions involve General Relativity but want to ignore the implications that association requires. You can call it whatever you like “nifty math” and “faerie fart math” but you simply ignore that you have specifically invoked it as “PC/EU math” as well.
Gravity and EM fields show up in a lab. We can compare Maxwell's equations and Alfven's MHD theory to real objects in a real lab. They aren't shy around controlled experiments. I don't frankly care if you would prefer to use Newton's math if it bothers you to use Einstein's math for some philosophical reason. I'm willing to let you use either set of equations to describe "gravity" in a mathematical way, even if they both end up being replaced by a quantum gravity theory some day. The point is that I can experience gravity and EM fields here on Earth. These forces/curvatures exist in nature in a physically empirical way.
Your inflation thing is pure mathematical mythos, like a numerology gig that is meant to be complex enough to make is 'seem' legitimate, but when we look for empirical evidence from a controlled scientific test, you can't produce squat. James Randi could easily put up that reward for anyone who could empirically demonstrate inflation and his money would be just as safe as for any other numerology claim.
I could not give a flying handshake about what you believe, but inflation and the math involved makes certain conclusions about what we should observe and what we do observe seems to support those conclusions.
The never 'predicted' those 'dark flow' or gaping holes in the universe. Ooops? You can't make it show up in a lab, so what distinguishes it from an other numerology theory?
No different then most other “empirical” verifications in modern physics (including EM Fields).
EM fields have a physical affect on physical objects in a lab. You can therefore compare a mathematical theory to experimental results. That is impossible with 'inflation' because it's entirely made up from "point at the sky and postdict accordingly" sorts of mentalities.
No you are missing the point, the same process in employed with inflation. Sure we can currently produce some limited fusion on Earth, but not at the scales or specific types, like Carbon Oxygen Nitrogen Cycle fusion,
You can't get inflation to have any affect on even one single atom here on Earth. What makes you think it works "out there somewhere"?
that we conclude is the dominant fusion in some stars.
You may conclude such a thing, but then again, I do not. I would however not ever try to claim that standard solar theory is "woo", because it's at least based on known things and known laws of physics and a demonstrated energy source.
Inflation is pure "make believe" and came straight from the imagination of one human being, specifically Alan Guth. It's never been "physically demonstrated" in any controlled experiment. Period.
The calculation of those types of fusion on those scales agrees with what we do observe from those stars.
And in this case you are comparing a *demonstrated and measured phenomenon* to another "measured* observation, and therefore there is nothing wrong with the idea, even if it is someday disproven.
Similarly we may be able to confirm aspects of General Relativity to limited scales on or around the Earth (time dilation, frame dragging, gravitational deflection of light, ect)
So I will therefore be happy to let you apply GR theory (devoid of other metaphysical fudge factors) to objects in space without complaint. Right or wrong, I can see that gravity exists and even if a gravity theory is proven false, gravity will still continue to function just fine.
Inflation isn't something that has *ever* been demonstrated.
but the actual scale required for inflation is as impossible to be preformed on the Earth as are the scales required for Solar fusion.
Fusion can be demonstrated on Earth. I'm therefore willing to let you "scale" it anyway you might like within the laws of physics as we understand them. If however you apply "elf magic" to objects in space, then I want to see "elf magic" do something to something else here on Earth in a controlled experiment. Assuming you can do this, you are then welcome to scale "elf magic" to any scale you wish, within the known laws of physics. If you can't demonstrate "inflation" of "elf magic" has any affect here on Earth, I have no confidence it affects anything anywhere.
Likewise inflation and the math based on General Relativity makes certain conclusions about what we should be able to observe and what we do observe seems to support those conclusions.
You're simply stuffing "magic" into an otherwise fully demonstrated theory of "gravity' and never demonstrating the effect in any way, nor are you offering us any legitimate way to do that.
Hell, if someone came up with a ‘Deflation’ model that produced the observed results then there might be something to debate. However no current models fit the observed results as well as inflationary models.
There are static universe theories based on tired light theories that match the redshift results with equal precision, and EM fields show up in an experiment. Any simply Occum's razor argument can demonstrate that inflation is not necessary.
Remember that thing called Gravity that shows up on earth, it is the same math that you say “is utterly and completely useless at predicting anything in a "controlled experiment"”. So it seems it is not the math you oppose but simply the scale involved in inflation.
You can't "scale" something you can't demonstrate in the first place! Gah. You're trying to skip the empirical demonstration of affect entirely and you're jumping right to "scaling", as though I can scale my elf farts without showing they exist! Come on!
FYI, I'm perfectly happy sticking to Newtonian mathematical descriptions of math and applying MHD theory to that math rather than Einstein's math. For interplanetary space travel, Newton's math works just fine, and I'm sure it works fine for almost every observation inside this solar system too. To the extent GR can be "demonstrated" it is a "better" scientific theory. In neither case am I worried that "Gravity" might not exist only because these mathematical models have physical limits. They can be shown to work in a "domain".
You can't even demonstrate inflation works at all or has *any* "domain" of relevance.
