Speed relative to expansion

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What type of tired light theory do you favor ? Where has this been demonstrated ?EDIT : I see your answer predated my question by 1 minute ...&nbsp;&nbsp; Mebbe my electrons were tired.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p>I think we must have pressed enter at the same time.&nbsp; FYI, I've handed Ari's work to a number of folks who's math skills are far superior to mine including DrRocket, and I've yet to hear any serious criticism of this paper from anyone, either in terms of the math or the physics being proposed.</p><p>This idea is *not* emprically verified as you correctly surmised, but then this is also true of DE and inflation. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's equally "unverified" at this point in time, but it seems like a reasonable alternative to superluminal expansion, and that is attractive from my perspective. http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brynjolfsson_A/0/1/0/all/0/1 <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Thank you for the links, I had a quick flick through the abstracts and, on face value, I can see why the argument seems so compelling. An infinite and static universe poses some interesting philosophical questions, does it not? </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can substitute the term "unicorn'' into Guth original "monopole' comments and then there is math that forbids their existence too.&nbsp;&nbsp; You don't figure someone could trump up some math?</DIV></p><p>You are just twisting my words.&nbsp; First you say you specifically were referring to magnetic monopoles where you used the term "any" but then you go on to say that you don't believe in electric monopoles.&nbsp; The way the word monopole is used is some sort of "charge carrier".&nbsp; Electrons and protons clearly fit this definition.&nbsp; I never said they aren't explained.&nbsp; A magnetic monopole would clearly be the magnetic analogue to say, and electron.</p><p>The statement I quoted shows that you clearly only care about semantics.&nbsp; A magnetic monopole can be modelled mathematically, and we have models to predict how physics would behave if such a particle existed.&nbsp; If you replaced the term monopole with unicorn, then you'd STILL have the explanation of physics based on the existence of a magnetic monopole.&nbsp; You can't just replace terms.&nbsp; There are no unicron equations.&nbsp; You cannot meaningfully model a unicorn.&nbsp; So no, I don't think someone could trump up some math as you put it.&nbsp; Any meaningful mathematical description of physics is based on real theories.&nbsp; Technically you could make a model of a unicorn...but you would be modelling a lump of mass, not a particle...we already have models of lumps of mass, this would be nothing new or exotic.&nbsp; Your argument is meaningless and I give up(on this thread, anyways), because you aren't even trying to address my questions or points. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think we must have pressed enter at the same time.&nbsp; FYI, I've handed Ari's work to a number of folks who's math skills are far superior to mine including DrRocket, and I've yet to hear any serious criticism of this paper from anyone, either in terms of the math or the physics being proposed.This idea is *not* emprically verified as you correctly surmised, but then this is also true of DE and inflation. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That is because you refuse to listen.&nbsp; His initial premise that a single photon can be treated as an electromagnetic wave is a serious error in physics.&nbsp; That premise is invalid and is critical to the entire paper.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you for the links, I had a quick flick through the abstracts and, on face value, I can see why the argument seems so compelling. An infinite and static universe poses some interesting philosophical questions, does it not? &nbsp; <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>It certainly does. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, it wouldn't be like that if you could demonstrate that inflation and/or DE have an empirical effect on matter in controlled experiments.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's only because I have to take it on "faith" that these things exist and have a real effect on nature that I remain a skeptic.&nbsp; It's not my fault that you can't explain how you got from a gravitationally bound singularity thing to a comoving coordinate system without invoking things that don't exist in nature.&nbsp;&nbsp; Inflation isn't even like any other known and identified vector or scalar field, because all other vector and scalar fields will experience a signficant decrease in desnity during multiple exponential increases in volume.&nbsp; It's literally a "supernatural" construct.&nbsp; Is that my fault too? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Thanks for reaffirming my assessment.&nbsp; Your 'refusal to understand the mechanics, as I noted, is evidenced by this post.&nbsp;</p><p>Since when has anyone claimed that dark energy has an effect on matter?&nbsp; This is nothing more than a strawman argument that you keep repeating.&nbsp; </p><p>Your attempt as discussing vector and scalar fields in relation to inflation show quite clearly you don't understand the physics.</p><p>It's, certainly, not mainstream's fault that you can't, don't, and/or won't understand their theories, laws, and models.&nbsp; I'm left with the conclusion that the fault lies with you as evidenced by your continual construction of strawman arguments to lieu of real math and physics.</p><p>Why do you argue against this stuff when you don't even understand it?&nbsp;</p><p> &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you for the links, I had a quick flick through the abstracts and, on face value, I can see why the argument seems so compelling. An infinite and static universe poses some interesting philosophical questions, does it not? &nbsp; <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>I'd just like to point out that those papers, after this many years, have yet to be published (as far as I know) by any reputable journal.&nbsp; Only two reasons they haven't been accepted.&nbsp; Either they are faulty or there is a conspiracy.&nbsp; I doubt the latter.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for reaffirming my assessment.&nbsp; Your 'refusal to understand the mechanics, as I noted, is evidenced by this post.</DIV></p><p>Nobody on the planet understands the "mechanics" of "dark energy" or "inflation", because they've never been emprically demonstrated.&nbsp; It's pure speculation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Since when has anyone claimed that dark energy has an effect on matter? </DIV></p><p>What does it do exactly, and *how* does it work?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is nothing more than a strawman argument that you keep repeating.&nbsp; Your attempt as discussing vector and scalar fields in relation to inflation show quite clearly you don't understand the physics.</DIV></p><p>What kind of field is "inflation"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's, certainly, not mainstream's fault that you can't, don't, and/or won't understand their theories, laws, and models.</DIV></p><p>It's not my fault you're violating the laws of physics.&nbsp; You're right, I don't understand it, and nobody really does understand it.&nbsp; I've had so many conversations now on this topic and I an assure you that no two people express these ideaa the same way.&nbsp; They all use different "metaphors" (negative pressure vacuum) and stuff that doesn't exist in nature.&nbsp; No other known vector or scalar field that exists in nature will do the tricks that inflation does.&nbsp; Only inflation retains near constant density over several *exponential* increases in volume.&nbsp; What other field does that? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'm left with the conclusion that the fault lies with you as evidenced by your continual construction of strawman arguments to lieu of real math and physics.Why do you argue against this stuff when you don't even understand it?&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>IMO the "strawman arguements" about expansion relate to the metaphors that the mainstream uses to "explain" this idea.&nbsp; There is no such thing as a negative pressure vacuum.&nbsp;&nbsp; In the real world of physics, material obejcts do not accelerate away from each other without some force acting upon them.&nbsp; Only in mathematical mythos does inflation exist.&nbsp; Only in mathematical mythos does "dark energy" exist.&nbsp; They've never been emprically demonstrated in any controlled test, and to the best of your knowledege they never can be or will be tested in controlled experimentation.&nbsp; It's something you simplly have to accept on "faith'. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'd just like to point out that those papers, after this many years, have yet to be published (as far as I know) by any reputable journal.&nbsp; Only two reasons they haven't been accepted.&nbsp; Either they are faulty or there is a conspiracy.&nbsp; I doubt the latter.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Sorry, but I've seen the bias that plays out toward EU theory in astronomy.&nbsp; I have no doubt that any tired light theories sent to the publishers are treated with exactly the same irrational contempt.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is because you refuse to listen.&nbsp; His initial premise that a single photon can be treated as an electromagnetic wave is a serious error in physics.&nbsp; That premise is invalid and is critical to the entire paper. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>A single photons is both a particle and a wave DrRocket.&nbsp;&nbsp; By the way, did you find any mathematical errors in his presentation?&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are just twisting my words.&nbsp; First you say you specifically were referring to magnetic monopoles where you used the term "any" but then you go on to say that you don't believe in electric monopoles. </DIV></p><p>We're kinda drifting off topic now.&nbsp; There is a fundamental MHD idea I'm trying to convery here that doesn't seem to be getting through. &nbsp; Magnetic fields are a byproduct of current flow.&nbsp; They exist in plasma beceause of the currents that traverse the plasma.&nbsp; The only energy they "store" is the kinetic energy of the particle stream that get's 'pinched' into current carrying streams of plasma. &nbsp; The "energy transfer process" takes place between the physical particles of matter in these plasma streams.&nbsp; There are no types of monopoles involved in the energy exachnge, just charged particles. </p><p>To the best of our knowledge magnetic monopoles have never existed.&nbsp; That isn't the way nature works.&nbsp; To then claim that a lack of these "things" (for lack of a better term) in nature is due to any other "thing" we might come up with, and slap a little math to, is irrational and unfalsifiable.&nbsp; How can we prove thta one unevidence thing "caused" another unevidenced thing to not exist?&nbsp; This arguement is illogical.&nbsp; There has never been an emprical link established between inflation and magnetic monopoles.&nbsp; Nobody has ever "cranked up" inflaition and therby reduced the monopole population inside the experiment, or turned off inflation to watch monopoles&nbsp; form.&nbsp; It's an unfalsifiable concept. </p><p>We all know that charged particles flow inside of plasma.&nbsp; We also know that no magnetic monopoles have ever been found.&nbsp;&nbsp; A lack of these magnetic monopoles is not evidence of anything else, particularly something that has also never been shown to exist.&nbsp; It's like claiming that the invisible elves are the reason we find no unicorns on our planet.&nbsp; I can't falsify either premise. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A single photons is both a particle and a wave DrRocket.&nbsp;&nbsp; By the way, did you find any mathematical errors in his presentation?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I've just read through one of Brynjolfsson's papers(Plasma Redshift, Time Dilation, and Supernovas Ia), just to see if your claim of "anti-EU bias" is a valid argument.&nbsp; After reading the paper, I can conclude safely that it is not.&nbsp; Aside from the fact that it is riddled with gramattical errors, it is entirely amateur-like in its presentation.&nbsp; I could not find any mathematical errors in his presentation...this is because he barely used any.&nbsp; OK, he wrote down the distance modulus, good job.&nbsp; He repeatedly says "if we had done _____ then this would happen"...see page 5, third paragraph from the bottom for example.&nbsp; Also, on page 6 he applies a correction to the redshifts to account for galaxy "coronas" and just picks an arbitrary number of z=0.00185...where are the calculations?&nbsp; You can't just whip up a magic number that very conveniently makes the data fit your model.&nbsp; There is no justification for this number, no references, no calculation, no nothing.&nbsp; There are plenty of other such instances where he just hand-waves something into existence. &nbsp;</p><p>So no, these papers were not rejected because of an anti-EU bias...they were rejected because they are poorly written and make unjustified claims, two things which will get ANY paper rejected.&nbsp; There's a reason why "mainstream" papers have multiple pages of references...it is because to get published(in a reputable journal) you HAVE to back up every single thing you say.&nbsp; I can only imagine the reaction the referee had to papers like these...he either wanted to smash his head into the wall repeatedly saying NO you can't do that, or he just threw it away. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've just read through one of Brynjolfsson's papers(Plasma Redshift, Time Dilation, and Supernovas Ia), just to see if your claim of "anti-EU bias" is a valid argument.</DIV></p><p>FYI, in this case I would assume that the primary bias has more to do with keepng Hubble's "law" safe from the likes of Arp and his clan.&nbsp; The EU aspect is probably a minor issue in comparison.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> After reading the paper, I can conclude safely that it is not.&nbsp; Aside from the fact that it is riddled with gramattical errors, it is entirely amateur-like in its presentation. </DIV></p><p>Ya, well, lots of papers have "amateur" presentation problems and gramatical errors.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I could not find any mathematical errors in his presentation...this is because he barely used any.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>I'm assuming that you didn't read the 95 page "whopper" paper?&nbsp; It's got so much math in there my head hurts just looking at it.&nbsp; In his "short" papers he tends to refer to the original derivations and he just focuses on his core theories.&nbsp; Beleive me, his theories have plenty of math to sift through.&nbsp; I don't expect you to read the 95 page version from start to finish, but you should at least glance through it.&nbsp; He presents his ideas in minuie mechanical and mathematical detail.&nbsp;&nbsp; He may have barely used any math in the paper you happened to read, but I assure you that he enjoys math and uses a lot of math in his longer presentations. </p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's a reason why "mainstream" papers have multiple pages of references...it is because to get published(in a reputable journal) you HAVE to back up every single thing you say.&nbsp; I can only imagine the reaction the referee had to papers like these...he either wanted to smash his head into the wall repeatedly saying NO you can't do that, or he just threw it away.&nbsp; <br /><p> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I think you're seriously underestimating the biases that exist in astronomy, and the importance of current beliefs within your industry.&nbsp;&nbsp; One of the primary "pillars" of mainstream belief is that the universe is expanding and that redshift is related to this expansion process.&nbsp; Ari's ideas strike at the heart of that fundamental belief since it proposes a "tired light/static universe" idea.&nbsp; The likelihood of something like this seeing the light of day in a mainstream publication about the same as a snowball's chance in hell.&nbsp; Any and all static universe theories would bring down inflation theory, dark energy theory, BB theory, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even a blantently EU paper that focused only on aolar events has a far greater chance of getting published. </p><p>There's no point in trying to judge the validity of this type of static universe paper based on whether or not the mainstream has published it.&nbsp; The fact it's also an "EU" oriented approach to cosmology theory only adds fuel to the fire.&nbsp; The main problem with tired light theories in general is that a static universe concept would bring down the whole mainstream belief system.&nbsp; It's a bigger problem than you seem to realize. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420</p><p>FYI, you might take gander though this paper since this is the paper that lays out the math.&nbsp; As you'll see, Ari does present the idea in some mathematical detail.&nbsp; I've handed this paper to a lot of math jocks.&nbsp; I've yet to hear any of them come up with a mathematical problem in his presentation.&nbsp; DrRocket's objects seems to be more of a "physics" sort of argument, but even individual photons are treated as both a particle and a wave so I don't see how that is a valid objection.</p><p>The primary scientific "problem" of course is that Ari's redshift theory has never been "emprically verified", but then none of the expansion theories has been emprically verified either.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420FYI, you might take gander though this paper since this is the paper that lays out the math.&nbsp; As you'll see, Ari does present the idea in some mathematical detail.&nbsp; I've handed this paper to a lot of math jocks.&nbsp; I've yet to hear any of them come up with a mathematical problem in his presentation.&nbsp; DrRocket's objects seems to be more of a "physics" sort of argument, but even individual photons are treated as both a particle and a wave so I don't see how that is a valid objection.The primary scientific "problem" of course is that Ari's redshift theory has never been "emprically verified", but then none of the expansion theories has been emprically verified either.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Did he really submit this to a journal?&nbsp; And here I thought my paper was getting way too long at ~25 pages...I'll try to read through it eventually, but my point was, in his shorter papers he needs to work on his style.&nbsp; If he got those numbers from this paper, he needs to say that.&nbsp; He does reference it at other points in his paper but only when talking about concepts.&nbsp; When you see sentences like that one where he adds in that redshift correction, to me at first glance it looks like "hmm, my curve is a little off, but if I add this value its perfect!&nbsp; I'll just say it was galaxy coronas".&nbsp; In his smaller paper he frequently says "if we took this into consideration" or "if we did it this way...", but you have to actually DO the things if you want to get published.&nbsp; I do hope this tome is at least more readable...someone needs to get this guy a proofreader.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Did he really submit this to a journal?&nbsp; And here I thought my paper was getting way too long at ~25 pages...</DIV></p><p>Come now.&nbsp; You can't get uptight about the length of the paper.&nbsp; He is afterall trying to overturn some core tenets of astronomical beliefs.&nbsp; You'd expect a "full" presentation of the idea wouldn't you?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll try to read through it eventually,</DIV></p><p>FYI, it literally took me *several months* to sift through it the first time. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but my point was, in his shorter papers he needs to work on his style.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and I have the same complaint about Priest's "short" presentation of "magnetic reconnection". &nbsp; We're all learning and growing. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If he got those numbers from this paper, he needs to say that.&nbsp; He does reference it at other points in his paper but only when talking about concepts.&nbsp; When you see sentences like that one where he adds in that redshift correction, to me at first glance it looks like "hmm, my curve is a little off, but if I add this value its perfect!&nbsp; I'll just say it was galaxy coronas".&nbsp; In his smaller paper he frequently says "if we took this into consideration" or "if we did it this way...", but you have to actually DO the things if you want to get published.&nbsp; I do hope this tome is at least more readable...someone needs to get this guy a proofreader.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I hear you.&nbsp; I had a similar "feeling" while reading his papers.&nbsp; On the other hand, his "full" presentation is quite extensive in it's physical and mathematical detail.&nbsp; I would expect a theory like this to be well documented and for the author to be a bit of a "geek" in terms of his language skills.&nbsp; IMO that is true of Alfven as well by the way.&nbsp; Alfven tends to "assume" a lot about the readers background and their ability to keep up with him.&nbsp; It's a common tendency among people who've been studying a single subject for a very long time. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody on the planet understands the "mechanics" of "dark energy" or "inflation", because they've never been emprically demonstrated.&nbsp; It's pure speculation.What does it do exactly, and *how* does it work?What kind of field is "inflation"?It's not my fault you're violating the laws of physics.&nbsp; You're right, I don't understand it, and nobody really does understand it.&nbsp; I've had so many conversations now on this topic and I an assure you that no two people express these ideaa the same way.&nbsp; They all use different "metaphors" (negative pressure vacuum) and stuff that doesn't exist in nature.&nbsp; No other known vector or scalar field that exists in nature will do the tricks that inflation does.&nbsp; Only inflation retains near constant density over several *exponential* increases in volume.&nbsp; What other field does that? IMO the "strawman arguements" about expansion relate to the metaphors that the mainstream uses to "explain" this idea.&nbsp; There is no such thing as a negative pressure vacuum.&nbsp;&nbsp; In the real world of physics, material obejcts do not accelerate away from each other without some force acting upon them.&nbsp; Only in mathematical mythos does inflation exist.&nbsp; Only in mathematical mythos does "dark energy" exist.&nbsp; They've never been emprically demonstrated in any controlled test, and to the best of your knowledege they never can be or will be tested in controlled experimentation.&nbsp; It's something you simplly have to accept on "faith'. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I have no illusions that I can sit here and rigorously defend inflation or dark energy.&nbsp; I'm, quite simply, not qualified to do so.&nbsp; However, I have no problems picking apart your logic when you make broad, sweeping generalizations about them.&nbsp; You seem to enjoy dismissing them out of hand without even understanding them.&nbsp; You argue against strawmen and it make no sense sometimes.</p><p>You make claims that they are capable of doing thing that they are not... Dark enegy and inflation don't accelerate mass.</p><p>You refer to the math as magical when you don't understand the math... Leading inflation theories don't involve vector fields and scalar fields DO change, oscillate and decay during the inflation epoch. </p><p>You claim things don't exist because they have not been seen in a lab... Particles that have been predicted to exist have been, still are, and will continue to be found as our technology allows. </p><p>All three of the common arguments you make are simply illogical.&nbsp; It's really difficult to communicate with you when you constantly take this approach.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>