Of a position lol.
This is me from May of this year:
"One aspect of inflation that’s fascinating is known as eternal inflation. If you look at the details of how inflation works, pretty much any model of inflation that you can construct that actually works — that gives you enough inflation to solve those three problems with the original Big Bang and produces the quantum effects necessary to seed the Universe with the imperfections that lead to our large-scale cosmic structure — will cause your Universe to expand in such a way that while inflation ends in some regions of space (like our own), leading to a hot Big Bang, there will be infinitely more, surrounding regions where inflation continues, generating more space that continues to inflate."
(What if they aren't really problems?
You know...
Kinda like having a start wasn't really one etc?)
And this is from
October 31, 2023
"Why is such contempt to initial conditions shown here?
It couldn't be due to the theistic implications
of showing design and thereby needing a designer could it?"
My point is that was when I started having some doubts/problems with cosmic inflation, and to be honest, the main reason I went with it was because it matches up well with the creation story in Genesis (Light before stars formed). Doing the piece on Chuck Missler Session Three on Genesis and he demonstrated that it could have been the entire electromagnetic spectrum that could have been responsible for light in the beginning (before stars) and in the process of putting that piece together, having come across this article:
Is the inflationary Universe a scientific theory?
and I was just done with it.
Still got light before the stars formed.
Still got the creator doing it.
Just have a different kind of light.
Not to mention,
if you don't have inflationary cosmology?
Then the Multiverse doesn't come into play at all.
"If you look at the details of how inflation works, pretty much any model of inflation that you can construct that actually works — that gives you enough inflation to solve those three problems with the original Big Bang and produces the quantum effects necessary to seed the Universe with the imperfections that lead to our large-scale cosmic structure — will cause your Universe to expand in such a way that while inflation ends in some regions of space (like our own), leading to a hot Big Bang, there will be infinitely more, surrounding regions where inflation continues, generating more space that continues to inflate."
(So? if inflation isn't needed and was just created to solve problems that don't exist to begin with? Then no multiverse.
A false premise never leads to a truthful conclusion etc.)
So lets get through this:
Is the inflationary Universe a scientific theory?
One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?
This article was written by Sabine Hossenfelder. Sabine is a theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics. She also freelance writes about science.
“I know of no other scientist, no other theoretical physicist alive who has a clearer focus on whether our theories and ideas are relevant to the real world. And that’s always what he’s after.” –Neil Turok, on Paul Steinhardt
"We are made from stretched quantum fluctuations.+
(Told you we are Quantum Light Beings :-)
"At least that’s cosmologists’ currently most popular explanation."
(Violate the dogma of this faith-based belief system and you get excommunicated just like in any other "tribe".)
"According to their theory, the history of our existence began billions of years ago with a — now absent — field that propelled the universe into a phase of rapid expansion called “inflation.” When inflation ended, the field decayed and its energy was converted into radiation and particles which are still around today."
(Well how convenient "a — now absent — field")
"Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics. In a recent article in Scientific American, Steinhardt together with Anna Ijjas and Avi Loeb, don’t hold back. Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers:"
(When the people that first proposed it start criticizing it themselves? You got issues.
"Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers"
Herd mentality much?
Adhere to the Dogma/Doctrine in this faith-based belief system or be excommunicated just like any other. Whats the difference?)
“[T]he cosmology community has not taken a cold, honest look at the big bang inflationary theory or paid significant attention to critics who question whether inflation happened. Rather cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents’ assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory because it offers the only simple explanation of the observed features of the universe.”
(That was from the article they wrote in Scientific American
"cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents’ assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory"
Don't you dare violate our orthodoxy!)
"And it’s even worse, they argue, inflation is not even a scientific theory:
“Inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
Things being tested by the scientific method? Are you kidding? That led to the universe having a begining, we cant have that, that violates our dogma, we have got to invent something else! So within the religion of scientism? using the scientific method has become at a minimum, optional.
"Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality."
It is an invalidated/outdated belief system.
Information in the DNA molecule
and UAP (unidentified anomalous phenomena
render it obsolete.)
"As alternative to inflation, Steinhardt et al. promote a “big bounce.” In this scenario, the universe’s current expansion was preceded by a phase of contraction, yielding similar benefits to inflation."
(As Missler and others have pointed out that has been invalidated as well, "the entropy laws shred that".)
"But the recent SciAm piece called The Defenders Of Inflation onto the stage. Led by David Kaiser, they signed a letter to Scientific American in which they complained that the magazine gave space to the inflationary criticism."
(You are not allowed to even think we are wrong! How dare you question our dogma!)
"Interestingly, Slava Mukhanov — one of the first to derive predictions from inflation — did not sign. And it’s not because he wasn’t asked. In an energetic talk delivered at Stephen Hawking’s birthday conference two months ago, Mukhanov made it pretty clear that he thinks most of inflationary model-building is but a waste of time."
(Uh...yeah...cause you are making things problems that aren't only because you don't like the initial conditions of the universe that show the prior planning by infinite wisdom.)
"The problem with inflation isn’t the idea per se, but the overproduction of useless inflationary models. There are literally hundreds of these models, and they are — as the philosophers say — severely underdetermined. This means if one extrapolates the models that fit current data to regimes which are still untested, the result is ambiguous. Different models lead to very different predictions for not-yet made observations. Presently, it is therefore utterly pointless to twiddle with the details of inflation because there are literally infinitely many models that one can think up, giving rise to infinitely many different “predictions.”
(This guy nailed it years ago:
"If a large body of our colleagues feels comfortable believing a theory that cannot be proved wrong, then the progress of science could get stuck, leading to a situation in which false, but unfalsifiable theories dominate the attention of our field."
That was 20 years ago.
Thats exactly what has happened.
Polluted, Corrupted,
Diluted ideas lead to purity?
Or purity gets Polluted, Corrupted,
Diluted over time?
You already know the answer.
This bunch just can not admit it to themselves.
So?
Translation of that above paragraph from the article?
Throw enough spaghetti at the wall and some noodles are bound to stick.)
"The problem with inflation isn’t the idea per se, but the overproduction of useless inflationary models. There are literally hundreds of these models...it is therefore utterly pointless to twiddle with the details of inflation because there are literally infinitely many models that one can think up, giving rise to infinitely many different “predictions.”"
Nothing is in play.
Just like when everything is a crisis?
Nothing is a crisis etc.
And we all know some of those types.)
"Rather than taking on this overproduction problem, however, Steinhardt et al. in their SciAm piece focus on inflation’s failure to solve the problems it was meant to solve. However, this criticism is off-target because the problems that inflation was meant to solve aren’t problems to begin with."
Me, in May of this year, reached the same conclusion
independently of having ever read this current article we are working through.
(What if they aren't really problems?
You know...
Kinda like having a start wasn't really one etc?)
This is every time the name of this articles author
appears on this blog.
You wont find this current article anywhere.
If I had read it earlier?
I probable would have done this piece earlier.
Reaching the same conclusions as a theoretical physicts
I look like a theoretical physicts to you?
Hardly.)
The three problems that aren't really problems inflationary cosmology tries to solve and the reasons as to why they are not problems.
1. The Monopole Problem:
Guth invented inflation to solve the “monopole problem.” If the early universe underwent a phase-transition, for example because the symmetry of grand unification was broken — then topological defects, like monopoles, should have been produced abundantly. We do not, however, see any of them. Inflation dilutes the density of monopoles (and other worries) so that it’s unlikely we’ll ever encounter one.
But a plausible explanation for why we don’t see any monopoles is that there aren’t any. We don’t know there is any grand symmetry that was broken in the early universe, or if there is, we don’t know when it was broken, or if the breaking produced any defects. Indeed, all searchers for evidence of grand symmetry — mostly via proton decay — turned out negative. This motivation is interesting today merely for historical reasons.
2. The Flatness Problem
The flatness problem is a finetuning problem. The universe currently seems to be almost flat, or if it has any spatial curvature, that curvature must be very small. The curvature contribution to the dynamics of the universe however increases in relevance relative to that of matter. This means if the curvature is small today, it must have been even smaller in the past. Inflation serves to make any initial curvature contribution smaller by something like 100 orders of magnitude or so.
This is supposed to be an explanation, but it doesn’t explain anything, for now you can ask, well, why wasn’t the original curvature larger than some other number? The reason that some physicists believe something is being explained here is that numbers close to 1 are pretty according to current beauty-standards, while numbers much smaller than 1 numbers aren’t. The flatness problem, therefore, is an aesthetics problem, and I don’t think it’s an argument any scientist should take seriously.
(HERE IS WHY IT IS FLAT YO:
Isaiah 34:4
And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
Revelation 6:14
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
It has to be because flat because its going to be rolled up someday.
"Well thats not scientific"
Well neither is your inflationary cosmology or your multiverse at least I have an ancient text to support my views what do you got?
NOTHING
but your own imaginations.
See:
"Guth invented inflation"
above.
1 Corinthians 3:19
Wisdom of man is foolishness to God)
3. The Horizon Problem
"The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has almost the exact same temperature in all directions. The problem is, if you trace back the origin of the background radiation without inflation, then you find that the radiation that reached us from different directions was never in causal contact with each other. Why then does it have the same temperature in all directions?
To see why this problem isn’t a problem, you have to know how the theories that we currently use in physics work. We have an equation — a “differential equation” — that tells us how a system (eg, the universe) changes from one place to another and one moment to another. To make any use of this equation, however, we also need starting values or “initial conditions.”*
"The horizon problem asks “why this initial condition” for the universe. This question is justified if an initial condition is complicated in the sense of requiring a lot of information. But a homogeneous temperature isn’t complicated. It’s dramatically easy. And not only isn’t there much to explain, inflation doesn’t even answer the question “why this initial condition” because it still needs an initial condition. It’s just a different initial condition. It’s not any simpler and it doesn’t explain anything."
"Another way to see that this is a non-problem: if you’d go back in time far enough without inflation, you’d eventually get to a period when matter was so dense and curvature so high that quantum gravity was important. And what do we know about the likelihood of initial conditions in a theory of quantum gravity? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
"That we’d need quantum gravity to explain the initial condition for the universe, however, is an exceedingly unpopular point of view because nothing can be calculated and no predictions can be made."
"Inflation, on the other hand, is a wonderfully productive model that allows cosmologists to churn out papers."
(Just like me and honey were saying the other day, lord knows these types need to justify their own existence.)
"You will find the above three problems religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place. But these problems aren’t problems, never were problems, and never required a solution."
(OMGoodness
She actually said it!
"You will find the above three problems
religiously repeated
as a motivation for inflation"
Kudos Sabine!
This is their faith based belief system to eliminate initial conditions which shows you the pre-planning and therefore requires an intellect behind them. Lord knows these types just cant have that.)
"Even though inflation was ill-motivated when conceived, however, it later turned out to actually solve some real problems. Yes, sometimes physicists work on the wrong things for the right reasons, and sometimes they work on the right things for the wrong reasons. Inflation is an example for the latter."
(Throw a bowl of spaghetti on the wall and some noodles will most assuredly stick.
To be fair she goes on to explain some of what inflation got right, but that's not what we are focusing on here, if you want to read those? then go read the entire article, its why I always provide the links, Im not trying to hide anything from anybody.)
"The scientific approach to the situation would be to choose a model, determine the parameters that best fit observations, and then revise the model as necessary — i.e., as new data comes in. But that’s not what cosmologists presently do. Instead, they have produced so many variants of models that they can now “predict” pretty much anything that might be measured in the foreseeable future."
(When your models can explain anything?
Any kinda new data that might happen to show up?
Then you really haven't really explained anything.
But you sure wrote a lot of papers your employers say you need to)
"It is this abundance of useless models that gives rise to the criticism that inflation is not a scientific theory. And on that account, the criticism is justified. It’s not good scientific practice. It is a practice that, to say it bluntly, has become commonplace because it results in papers, not because it advances science."
"I was therefore dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.
("The only barrier to truth is the presupposition
that one already has it."
Chuck Missler)
"Inflation is useful because it relates existing observations to an underlying mathematical model, yes. But we don’t yet have enough data to make reliable predictions from it. We don’t even have enough data to convincingly rule out alternatives."
* Contrary to what the name suggest, the initial conditions could be at any moment, not necessarily the initial one. We would still call them initial conditions.
(None of that eliminates the need for something outside of them to have created them. Universes just don't come into existence on their own and initial conditions don't just create themselves regardless of when they occur. Effects have causes, period. Everything in the universe has a cause, just the cause of everything doesnt? Its not illogical, its the complete absence of logic.)
IN SUMMARY THEN:
I'll see your inflationary cosmology,
and raise you the creation of the electromagnetic frequencies
from which everything else flowed
as being the original source of light
before the stars in
And God said,
“Let there be light,”
and there was light.
It was the first thing he ever said
and everything else flowed from it.
30:46 mark:
"I think it's not just light and sense of photons it may be photons it may be all electromagnetic frequencies were created out of which all this comes"
No comments:
Post a Comment