Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

• The Lambda-CDM model exactly matches the following data:

Bah! It doesn't "match" any of the following data *without* several brands of metaphysics and all sorts of things you can't physically demonstrate, starting with your claim of inflation and "expanding space". None of those observations fit anything without your metaphysical gap filler taking up 96% of the theory, with only a 4% use of actual real physics and actual real things.

Who cares what you can "make fit" based on a liberal use of metaphysical mumbo jumbo? If you can't make inflation move a single atom, or dark energy do anything to anything, I don't care if you can stuff them into a math formula and postdict an uncontrolled observation. Talk to me when you can actually "predict" the outcome of a "controlled experiment" with these things, or when I can actually buy something useful made of you 96% gap filler. Then I might be impressed. At the moment I'm utterly appauled that you theory is more than 90% metaphysics. With that much "wiggle room" you should be able to make your metaphysical fudge factor theory do handstands in the park too. So what?

I want to see you do something useful with inflation or dark energy. Then come talk to me about how "useful" your theory is at predicting anything. As it stands it's like claiming your magic theory is so special because it can explain a whole list of things as being due to magic. So what.

 

[Michael Mozina]

One final comment about MM's anti-math views:

One more time......

My views are not "anti-math". They are "anti-math-mythos". I happen to like and agree with GR theory as Einstein taught it to his students. I *RESENT* you mucking it up with some metaphysical blunder theory in fact.

I am "anti-BS". You can't show that inflation or DE does anything to anything. You made them up as fudge factors to make your theory work right. Big deal. I've seen it done a million times before. These creation events always begin...."In the beginning.......". From there they all go down hill in a hurry, including inflation theories.

But it does work.

By "work" I presume you mean it "works" in a real "experiment". Ok, as long as you can show your math has value here on Earth, I'll be happy to let you attempt to apply it to objects in space. If you can't get your math formula to do anything useful here on Earth, what value does it have anywhere?

Newton wrote equations-of-motion then took derivatives of them. What? Eh? Why should the abstractions of differential calculus, including things like the chain rule, integration by parts, etc., have anything to do with motion? Yet it works.

Again, you're talking about something that "works" in an actual experiment with real control mechanisms. I've never had a problem with that kind of math. It's only the "made up" kind I have not interest in.

Maxwell's equations are extremely deeply abstracted. Why should Nature have decided that electromagnetism should look exactly like this pair of vector equations? Why should all of the abstractions of vector calculus (which were discovered purely via those equations) also be perfectly true in real-world electromagnetism? Yet they are.

Another great example of "applied mathematics" that has led to TONS of useful consumer products.

You are still missing the key issue - These things show up in a lab! How can you simply overlook this issue?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, I'm saying gravity works as Newton predicted it, at least here on Earth.

On Earth, gravity works like Galileo said it does. Don't need Newton for that.

What you are all ignoring is that you all admit that satellites in space *do* validate GR theory and these tenets *can* be verified empirically, whereas inflation doesn't do anything or affect anything here on Earth.

Notice a trend? You need to go to larger and larger scales, and higher and higher precision, to get better and better theories of gravity. Galileo works fine if you want to stay on earth and aren't too precise, but not if you want to look at the moon. Newton work fine for the solar system, unless your instruments are precise enough. General relativity without dark matter works great for the solar system, but doesn't work for galaxies. GR with dark matter and without dark energy works fine for galaxies, but doesn't work so well for cosmology. Gravity is sensitive to different factors at different length scales. That you can't sense the need for dark energy in a lab on earth is of no consequence: you can't measure curvature in a lab on earth either. If we could build galaxy-sized labs, we could do direct tests of dark matter, but we can't, so until our precision gets MUCH better than it is now, we can only observe it at very large scales. Doesn't make it any less real.

 

[Michael Mozina]

On Earth, gravity works like Galileo said it does. Don't need Newton for that.

Yes, but if you want your GPS to work properly, you'll need GR.

Notice a trend?

Yes, none of you can empirically demonstrate that inflation was anything other than a figment of Guth's imagination.

You need to go to larger and larger scales, and higher and higher precision, to get better and better theories of gravity.

Even still, you need a *real event* to which you may compare the results from your "controlled" experiments to verify with math formula is better.

You guys can't get inflation to do anything to even a single individual atom in a controlled experiment, but already you want to "scale it to universal size". Come on. Don't you figure you skipped a step or two? Even most PC/EU theorist will admit that scaling is something that is troublesome, even with the ability to empirically test something over many magnitudes of order. Hell, you can't get inflation to move a hydrogen atom and you want me to believe it has some influence on a whole universe? Get real.

You guys are just filling the gaps of an otherwise failed gravity-centric oriented theory with pure metaphysical "bondo". Lot's of folks have noticed the cracks in the theory boys and girls, not just little ol' Michael.
http://cosmologystatement.org/

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, but if you want your GPS to work properly, you'll need GR.

Only the time dilation part, not the curvature part.

Yes, none of you can empirically demonstrate that inflation was anything other than a figment of Guth's imagination.

Einstein couldn't empirically demonstrate that space was curved either.

Even still, you need a *real event* to which you may compare the results from your "controlled" experiments to verify with math formula is better.

No, you need a real observation. Don't need a controlled experiment. Einstein didn't have any at his disposal. And as I've already told you, neither did Newton.

You guys can't get inflation to do anything to even a single individual atom

You will search in vain for any general relativistic effects on a single atom. Why is this surprising? Gravity acts on mass, and if you've got less of it, effects are smaller. Looking at single atoms is the LAST place you should want to look. Hell, we still can't even verify that a single atom behaves according to Newtonian gravity - sure, it will fall (ala Galileo), but how do you know it produces a gravitational field of its own?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Only the time dilation part, not the curvature part.

Hoy. The point is that *already* there are consumer products that use at least *parts* of GR. It works as "predicted" in real consumer products. I therefore have every logical reason to believe that it is a valid mathematical presentation of a thing called "gravity" that shows up in controlled experiments.

Einstein couldn't empirically demonstrate that space was curved either.

We can demonstrate at least parts of it are true today however.

No, you need a real observation. Don't need a controlled experiment. Einstein didn't have any at his disposal. And as I've already told you, neither did Newton.

Baloney. Both of them could pick up an object and drop it and watch gravity have an influence on that object. They could "measure* it and then build mathematical model and see how their math jived with actual experiments. There may not have been the "precision" to distinguish between them at the time, but alas that working GPS system demonstrates Einstein's math has merit.

You're absolute barking up the wrong tree by trying to compare GR theory, or Newtonian descriptions of gravity to inflation because I've never bitched about the math. It's the *physics* part you guys have a problem with, not the math.

You can't *physically* demonstrate that inflation has any affect on anything. You're trying to hide and dance around this fact with fancy math formulas the way a numerologist might try to slap on some math to make it sound interesting. It's the same dance as numerology, just a different tune.

Slapping math to elves is absurd. Likewise slapping math to inflation faeries and pointing at uncontrolled observations in the sky is just stupid. Show me a proof of concept and I'll be happy to let you scale the thing to size. Keep dancing around the fact you can't do that and I'm going to be sure you're handing me numerology and nonsense.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hoy. The point is that *already* there are consumer products that use at least *parts* of GR.

Decades after the theory was introduced and accepted. Surely you're not proposing that acceptance of the theory should have been delayed until GPS was implemented. That would have been absurd. GPS wouldn't have ever included GR corrections if we weren't already confident in the theory.

We can demonstrate at least parts of it are true today however.

Yes: by comparing predictions of his theory with astronomical observations. Just like the inflation folks.

Baloney. Both of them could pick up an object and drop it and watch gravity have an influence on that object.

Which gets them to Galileo and no further.

You can't *physically* demonstrate that inflation has any affect on anything.

I can't physically demonstrate that the curvature of space has any effect on anything either, or that it even is curved. I can demonstrate that mathematically it produces effects which I can observe, but so can the inflation folks.

You're trying to hide and dance around this fact with fancy math formulas

Yup. That's me. Dancing around with my fancy-pants math. Puttin on airs 'cause I's gots more learnin' than some folks.

Slapping math to elves is absurd.

Leave your elf fetishes out of this.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Decades after the theory was introduced and accepted. Surely you're not proposing that acceptance of the theory should have been delayed until GPS was implemented. That would have been absurd. GPS wouldn't have ever included GR corrections if we weren't already confident in the theory.

You have amazing way of avoiding the key point. Gravity can be physically demonstrated. I therefore have no problem with you developing mathematical models and applying them to objects in space. Inflation *cannot* be demonstrated, so I have no confidence in any math you assign to inflation, just as I have no confidence to any math you might assign to astrological signs. Your numerology routine is meaningless to a skeptic because you can't empirically demonstrate that inflation exist in nature. I can definitely "experience" gravity without even understanding the math.

Yes: by comparing predictions of his theory with astronomical observations. Just like the inflation folks.

The inflation folks failed to demonstrate inflation works "here" before pointing to the sky and claiming "inflation did it".

Which gets them to Galileo and no further.

Gravity is gravity and it shows up in a lab, regardless of what math formula you use to describe it. Inflation never shows up in a controlled experiment and someone is still constantly "tweaking" the math to make ti fit something in the sky.

Yup. That's me. Dancing around with my fancy-pants math. Puttin on airs 'cause I's gots more learnin' than some folks.

And like the emperor with no physical clothes on, all your fancy dancing is simply designed to try to hide the fact that you can't demonstrate your claim *in real physics* right here on Earth. Randi could easily offer his reward for anyone who could empirically demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of Guth's imagination in a controlled experiment, and I guarantee you that his money would be safe. You guys are all talk, no action. It's just a fancy numerology dance.

Leave your elf fetishes out of this.

Likewise leave your inflation faerie fetishes out of my daughters' classrooms. I resent you stuffing metaphysical garbage down her throat.

 

[Zeuzzz]

*Sits back and eats some popcorn*

This is fun. Though I wish everyone would stop being so polite. Lets take the boxing gloves off people and get personal. Much more fun. lol. I'm not gonna get involved.... mainly because I dont really have a clue what either side is getting at.

Though, it is very fun watching. And, actually, its probably best to stay civilized about this, and keep the boxing gloves on.

I think that some people need to brush up on a certain little method called the experimental scientific method, and contemplate what this may mean for certain cosmological entities.

[Someone, please, what is the code for the popcorn eating smiley?!?]

Sorry ..... ignore this ..... Carry on peeps

 

[Tubbythin]

I can't tell you how to sustain hydrogen fusion either, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

That's true but... there is still no bound state of 2 neutrons. Its not that we can't make it, we know it doesn't exist.

 

[Tubbythin]

You guys are just filling the gaps of an otherwise failed gravity-centric oriented theory with pure metaphysical "bondo". Lot's of folks have noticed the cracks in the theory boys and girls, not just little ol' Michael.
http://cosmologystatement.org/

Oh dear.
Several points:
1) Science is not a democracy.
2) If it were your party would be one of the very small ones.
3) Dead people can't vote.
4) I'm more qualified than some people on this unimpressive list.
5) You're arguing like a creationist again. Just google "Project Steve" to see exactly what I mean.
6) Some of the signatures really are creationists! Do you really want to associate yourself with this?

 

[Skwinty]

I have been following this thread with great interest.
I would like to ask the following:

Given that scientists are currently trying to directly detect and measure dark matter and dark energy, and trying to create a star on planet earth with the National Ignition Facility. (targetting deuterium and tritium, the heavy isotopes of hydrogen, with lasers capable of 500 trillion watts, albeit briefly)

How long before scientists try to reproduce inflation here on earth?

Surely this objective must have some importance to science.

Is the easy answer to Michael purely this:

The math with parameters show inflation, and when we are able to produce the required range of pressure and temperature in the lab, we will be able to try and detect and measure the effect of inflation in the lab.

After all, it is common in science to wait years, due to absence of technology, before being able to empirically validate a theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh dear.
Several points:
1) Science is not a democracy.

Yes, I understand this point, which is why I'm not impressed with inflation only because it's "popular" right now. It wasn't popular when I was 15.

2) If it were your party would be one of the very small ones.

Point number one is why I'm not impressed much by appeals to popularity fallacies.

3) Dead people can't vote.

Dead people can tell us something about science.

4) I'm more qualified than some people on this unimpressive list.

That could be simply a trap of ego for all I know unless of course you can empirically demonstrate your claim.

5) You're arguing like a creationist again. Just google "Project Steve" to see exactly what I mean.

Um, you're the one tying to peddle a superluminal creation event around here, not me.

6) Some of the signatures really are creationists! Do you really want to associate yourself with this?

Sure, why not. I talk to astronomers every single day and they are the single biggest proponents of a creation event that I am aware of. Their creation event is just as unsupportable by known laws of physics as any other creation event. It's "timeline" is just as dependent upon things that have not been empirically demonstrated.

You guys better look in the mirror before you start accusing me of creationism. I assure you that I'm quite comfortable with an infinite and eternal universe and I absolutely no need of any creation stories. If this physical universe had a creation date, great. If not, oh well. I'm not attached one way or the other. What I won't do is buy into any creation story that requires "faith" in the physically unsupportable theories, and your creation event is no better than any other in my book because it's based on not one, but *several* things you cannot empirically demonstrate to exist outside of your imagination.

 

[sol invictus]

Given that scientists are currently trying to directly detect and measure dark matter and dark energy,

Whoa! Stop right there. They're not trying to detect dark energy in lab experiments - I'm not aware of any theory in which that's even remotely possible. Dark energy is extremely diffuse - measuring it on earth would require experimental precision far beyond what we're currently capable of. For the forseeable future, all they can do is observe its effects on the large scale structure of the universe and try to infer its properties from that.

and trying to create a star on planet earth with the National Ignition Facility.

A star? No, not even close. They're trying to produce a fusion reaction similar to the one we can already produce in a hydrogen bomb (but without the mess). Fusion powers stars, but they are much more than just that - it's like saying if you're trying to light a match your goal is to create a car, since cars run on combustion.

How long before scientists try to reproduce inflation here on earth?

That could be exceedingly dangerous, but fortunately it's totally out of reach.

Surely this objective must have some importance to science.

Sure - so is producing black holes, being able to alter the trajectories of galaxy clusters, creating wormholes, and all sorts of other things that might be possible theoretically but are totally out of our reach.

Is the easy answer to Michael purely this:

The math with parameters show inflation, and when we are able to produce the required range of pressure and temperature in the lab, we will be able to try and detect and measure the effect of inflation in the lab.

That's true in principle, yes.

But the point is deeper than that. When paleontologists categorize fossils they're able to learn a huge amount about the history of life on earth, evolution, adaptation, etc. Certainly laboratory experiments have a big role in that (for example, they allow us to understand what DNA is and how it affects inheritance). But evolution as it happened in our own past is something that's intrinsically impossible to ever test "in a lab". To argue that that means it isn't science is manifestly absurd.

The truth is, controlled laboratory experiments are an extremely good way to test theories. But some theories, and some natural phenomena, are impossible to test that way. Does that make them wrong? Obviously not - the wold is the way the world is, regardless of whether it's convenient for us. All we can do is use the data accessible to us to build theories, and do our best to find new ways to test them - either in the lab or by applying them to new sets of phenomena which are already present in nature.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have been following this thread with great interest.
I would like to ask the following:

Given that scientists are currently trying to directly detect and measure dark matter and dark energy, and trying to create a star on planet earth with the National Ignition Facility. (targetting deuterium and tritium, the heavy isotopes of hydrogen, with lasers capable of 500 trillion watts, albeit briefly)

How long before scientists try to reproduce inflation here on earth?

Great question. Do they even know how or if it's even reproducible here on Earth? I've heard some claim we are in "coasting expansion mode" and inflation may not even exist anymore. Do they even have a consensus on that issue?

Surely this objective must have some importance to science.

You would think so, but they seem quite happy just pointing at sky measurement and tweaking their math accordingly without so much as a single proof of concept. It's a bit scary frankly how detached from real "physics" they have become recently. It wasn't like this when I was a kid by the way.

Is the easy answer to Michael purely this:

The math with parameters show inflation, and when we are able to produce the required range of pressure and temperature in the lab, we will be able to try and detect and measure the effect of inflation in the lab.

After all, it is common in science to wait years, due to absence of technology, before being able to empirically validate a theory.

The problem is that I have already waited 25 years now for any sort of inflation to show up in a lab. In all that time I haven't even seen what I would call a legitimate attempt to justify the concept physically. There was never any legitimate justification for inflation in the first place. Unlike neutrino theories, the idea did not come about as the result of controlled experiments and laws of physics. It was simply "made up" in a purely ad hoc manner. Read Guth's original paper for yourself.

 

[sol invictus]

Yes, I understand this point, which is why I'm not impressed with inflation only because it's "popular" right now. It wasn't popular when I was 15.

That's because there's now tons of empirical data that supports it.

Point number one is why I'm not impressed much by appeals to popularity fallacies.

And yet you linked to a list of people that support your view, as if that were evidence for it.... your hypocrisy is impressive.

Dead people can tell us something about science.

But it's hard for them to access current data.

Um, you're the one tying to peddle a superluminal creation event around here, not me.

The best part about physics wingnuts is how they attack theories they totally fail to understand for things they imagine. "Superluminal creation event" is word salad - an event cannot be superluminal, nor is such an event part of the theory in the first place.

Sure, why not. I talk to astronomers every single day

That must be great fun for them...

and they are the single biggest proponents of a creation event that I am aware of.

No, they just believe in data rather than already knowing the answers, as you think you do.

Their creation event is just as unsupportable by known laws of physics as any other creation event.

Nonsense. Not only is big bang theory consistent with the known laws of physics, it's predicted by them. If you understood anything at all about gravity you'd know that... but you don't.

What I won't do is buy into any creation story that requires "faith" in the physically unsupportable theories, and your creation event is no better than any other in my book because it's based on not one, but *several* things you cannot empirically demonstrate to exist outside of your imagination.

Reality is precisely the opposite. The only way to avoid concluding there's a big bang in our past is to invoke new laws of physics which have no empirical basis.

Gravity is attractive. Run the universe back in time for a while and see where that gets you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A star? No, not even close. They're trying to produce a fusion reaction similar to the one we can already produce in a hydrogen bomb (but without the mess). Fusion powers stars, but they are much more than just that - it's like saying if you're trying to light a match your goal is to create a car, since cars run on combustion.

The obvious problem with this theory is that while you *can* demonstrate fusion, inflation hides from view in every controlled experiment. I don't even buy into your solar theories by the way, but I would not call them "woo", because they are at least based on known laws of physics as it relates to an energy source.

Inflation however is pure "woo" because it's a "no show" in any and all "experiments' with ""control mechanisms". It's purely an ad hoc fabrication.

That's true in principle, yes.

So where is the experiment in the works that I can be sure will test this idea within the next 5 years?

But the point is deeper than that. When paleontologists categorize fossils they're able to learn a huge amount about the history of life on earth, evolution, adaptation, etc. Certainly laboratory experiments have a big role in that (for example, they allow us to understand what DNA is and how it affects inheritance). But evolution as it happened in our own past is something that's intrinsically impossible to ever test "in a lab". To argue that that means it isn't science is manifestly absurd.

Pure BS. Microevolution has been documented, and even macro evolution has been shown to be possible due to changes in the hox genes. This is pure baloney. There are *tons* of real pieces of *controlled* processes (i.e. new predators introduced into a existing ecosystem) where natural selection has been observed. Inflation *never* has been observe, anywhere, not ever.

The real problem is that you folks don't even have a decent "experiment" in the works to test "inflation". You're all perfectly happy pointing to the sky, tinkering with your math, and never once "testing" this idea in the realm of real physics. It's numerology all over again.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's because there's now tons of empirical data that supports it.

Pure unadulterated BS. There is *NO* empirical evidence that supports inflation. You guys can't tell the difference between empirical evidence and "interpretation" and "wishful thinking". You can't even cite a single real "experiment" (complete with control mechanism) where inflation did anything to anything else. You're basing this statement on pure observation and pure interpretation that is utterly *devoid* of empirical support.

And yet you linked to a list of people that support your view, as if that were evidence for it.... your hypocrisy is impressive.

It's a list of folks that find your theory to be hypocritical and unimpressive. I simply noted that I'm not the only skeptic of your theory. I was not trying to claim there was even a "consensus" of how to reject your theory. Most folks just resent the fact it's 96% "made up".

The best part about physics wingnuts is how they attack theories they totally fail to understand for things they imagine. "Superluminal creation event" is word salad - an event cannot be superluminal, nor is such an event part of the theory in the first place.

Baloney. The universe is supposedly larger than 27.4 billion light years wide. How did it get that way in 13.7 billion years?

No, they just believe in data rather than already knowing the answers, as you think you do.

Pfft. You have that backwards. I don't profess to know the answer, I just know it has nothing to do with inflation because inflation does not exist nor has it moved one single atom in a real experiment. You're the one that thinks he has it figured out to a creation date, plus/minus a few hundred thousand years.

Nonsense. Not only is big bang theory consistent with the known laws of physics, it's predicted by them. If you understood anything at all about gravity you'd know that... but you don't.

I know that all your grandstanding is pure bunk and that you can't demonstrate any of the fudge factors from your theory, starting with inflation and 'expanding space". It's all made up and it never shows up in a lab. It's just like numerology. It has the air of mathematical justification but when we strip away the hype and baloney, what we are left with is a completely untestable hypothesis that was made up in an ad hoc manner by attaching multiple ad hoc properties to it over time.

Reality is precisely the opposite. The only way to avoid concluding there's a big bang in our past is to invoke new laws of physics which have no empirical basis.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Ari's redshift theory is right and there is no need of a "big bang" at all?

Gravity is attractive. Run the universe back in time for a while and see where that gets you.

It would depend entirely upon all the factors involved and unlike you I don't profess to know how the universe got here, or when it was "created". I'm not even in any need of a creation event. If there was one, fine. If not, fine. It's no skin off my nose either way. What I won't do is simply 'make stuff up" as I go and pretend to be the world's leading expert on exactly when and how the universe was 'created'.

 

[sol invictus]

Pure BS. Microevolution has been documented, and even macro evolution has been shown to be possible due to changes in the hox genes. This is pure baloney. There are *tons* of real pieces of *controlled* processes (i.e. new predators introduced into a existing ecosystem) where natural selection has been observed.

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. How does studying evolution in the lab test, for example, theories about the extinction of the dinosaurs?

In case anyone else is reading this, I'll explain a little. Inflation is the theory that in the early stages of the universe, the dominant form of energy was in a condensate of a very massive scalar field. That form of energy has the interesting property that it doesn't redshift much at all - that is, its energy density is almost constant as the universe expands (as I showed explicitly above, that fact is a consequence of the mathematics of general relativity - if it's wrong, GR is wrong too). During inflation the rate of expansion accelerated very rapidly and the universe expanded enormously. That left many extremely characteristic features on the large scale structure of the universe - among other things it made the cosmic microwave background very uniform, but with a specific and characteristic pattern of fluctuations imprinted in it, it reduced the spatial curvature to very low levels, and it created a very specific and particular pattern in the structure of galaxy clusters.

All of those effects have been observed by a succession of satellite and earth-based observatories over the last two decades, to the point that the experimental support for inflation is pretty overwhelming. My guess is a Nobel prize will be awarded for it soon - and the Nobel physics committee is known for being extremely conservative about only awarding the prize for things with such overwhelming evidence that they are nearly certain to be right.

In the future, inflation will continue to be tested using observations of various other astrophysical quantities it determines (for example using various clever techniques to study a greater range of and with greater precision the power spectrum of density perturbations in hydrogen, and many other things I could mention). However it cannot be tested in labs in the forseeable future, because the scalar field responsible for it has a mass that probably makes it impossible to produce at even the most powerful particle accelerators we have accessible (or are likely to have in the next century). So if your criterion for a correct theory of science is that it be used in a product sold at Walmart, inflation is out. But of course nature couldn't care less if you hold such an absurd belief...

 

[sol invictus]

Pure unadulterated BS. There is *NO* empirical evidence that supports inflation.

A baldfaced lie repeated for the 10th time.... is still a baldfaced lie.

Baloney. The universe is supposedly larger than 27.4 billion light years wide. How did it get that way in 13.7 billion years?

The universe is probably infinite in extent - certainly that is the simplest hypothesis that fits the data. Anything else requires an additional assumption.

Fail.

I don't profess to know the answer, I just know it has nothing to do with inflation because inflation does not exist

Classic. Now you're contradicting yourself in two successive phrases in the same sentence.

I know that all your grandstanding is pure bunk and that you can't demonstrate any of the fudge factors from your theory, starting with inflation and 'expanding space".

Hmmm... how odd. I could swear it was a poster with the same name as you that just said "...but alas that working GPS system demonstrates Einstein's math has merit" and "Yes, but if you want your GPS to work properly, you'll need GR".

What I won't do is simply 'make stuff up" as I go and pretend to be the world's leading expert on exactly when and how the universe was 'created'.

How odd - I could swear there was a sentence in this same post that said "I just know it has nothing to do with inflation because inflation does not exist".

Getting dizzy from all that squirming and flipflopping yet?