Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Then Einstein was engaging in woo, because he could not empirically test general relativity.

That is simply not true. There were MANY parts he could not test at that time, but many parts he could test. Some of those many parts he could not test at the time have in fact been tested since that time. Gravity continues to exist and it shows up in a lab. Inflation does not exist and has no effect on anything in a lab. Since gravity empirically exists, GR is not "woo". At worst case it's a math model destined to be replaced by a QM explanation of gravity, but that seems to be a ways off.

Nor could Newton empirically test his theory of universal gravity.

He could demonstrate that gravity wasn't a figment of his imagination with nothing but his apple. No math was necessary to watch if fall over and over again each and every time he released it.

This has been pointed out to you before. Your previous answers were illogical and insufficient. You have established a standard that would exclude many of the greatest advances in physics, but don't even seem to realize it.

What you fail to accept as the obvious difference between these two ideas is that gravity shows up in a lab, and inflation does not. I therefore *can* empirically test some of Newton's math, and some of Einstein's math even if both of them are eventually replaced by a "better" mathematical presentation some day.

We don't observe neutrinos either: we observe photons.

We observe their "effect" on real thing in real experiments with real control mechanism. Neutrinos are not shy around the lab, and eventually every bit of data it turned into a photon in the visual wavelength so we can "see it" for ourselves. We enjoy making "observations", usually in the form of photons so our human eyes can see the data.

Are neutrinos likewise simply "subjective interpretation"? Again, you have no consistency in your standards.

No, neutrinos have a *known source*. We can turn on and off the source and thereby create a "control mechanism" to verify that the effect we observe is in fact related to the production of neutrinos. Where does inflation come from? Where did it go? Where does "dark energy" come from? Where does it go? How do I control a "source" of dark energy or inflation?

 

[Michael Mozina]

As part of the mission of this forum is education, readers of this post may be interested to know that MM's active participation in other internet discussion fora have produced some quite educational responses.

For example, in the space.com forum there is a thread entitled "Mozina's EU Theory Debunked" (link).

Please keep in mind that this is *one* of about 3 or 4 different threads the took place on this topic.

Apparently a member of that forum, who goes by the name DrRocket, not only downloaded the 994-page Birkeland tome, but also obtained a copy of both of the Alfvén books MM apparently cited repeatedly - Cosmical Electrodynamics, and Cosmic Plasma - read them, compiled a detailed rebuttal of many of MM's key assertions, and consolidated the rebuttal into a single (if rather long) post.

Unfortunately he neglected to note the differences between:

A) Alfven's Cosmology Theories
B) Birkeland's solar model.
C) The opinions of individuals on topics A and B

It took awhile to unravel the whole thing and that was only the first of several threads on that topic.

You will also note that I did give a definition of EU theory as the application of MDH theory to objects in space. It's actually a very 'simple' to understand definition. You should also note that I personally never tried to take credit for either Alfven's cosmology theories, or Birkeland's solar theories.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have completed a re-reading of the relevant parts of this thread.

I can find no post by MM that addresses this.

How many of my personal questions have you completely ignored now? You won't tell us what caused the whole thing to go "bang" one fine day, but you do reject inflation. You won't tell us what the size might have been prior to the "bang". You can't tell us what "form" the energy might have been in prior to the bang. You can't tells us what "dark energy" actually is, nor is there any particular reason to rename "acceleration" in the first place. So in terms of real "physics" what do you personally have to offer me DRD? You seem to distance yourself from even the mainstream theory as it relates to inflation, so you sound positively hypocritical from my perspective. You get to pick and chose what things you believe in, but I don't have that same luxury?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It's not a strawman if you actually said it.

It is a strawman if you take *one sentence* "out of context" and ignore the conversation that led to that sentence. The debate was whether or not we live in a "net zero" energy state universe. In the pendulum example it was clear we could indeed set an *arbitrary* reference point and use negative signs in our mathematical models of the movement of the pendulum. That has nothing to do with "zeroing" out the whole energy of this physical moving, expanding, accelerating, universe.

You might have a leg to stand on as it relates to a "net zero' energy state, *if* Guth did not begin with a "thingy" that possesses "heat'. Since that is certainly the case, his theory is not a "free lunch" theory, it is a "net positive" energy pre-mass "thingy" that is evidently *full* of "heat". How is "heat" not 'net positive energy"?

sol i got the ball rolling, with post #832 (extract): "All solutions to general relativity conserve energy - whatever energy goes into matter and radiation is compensated for by an increasingly negative gravitational potential (just like a rock falling)."

To which MM replied, in post #835: "Whaaaaaaaaat? Are you trying to tell me that the universe has a net zero energy now?"

In #836, Zig said: "Of course. Didn't you know? Of course not: you're clueless about GR even though you think you aren't. That's bog-standard GR, too: it applies regardless of the mechanism which stores energy, so it's a feature which is independent of dark matter, dark energy, and inflation."

Now most people, when in a hole, would stop digging ... or at least go check out GR, as Einstein taught it (should I make that a quote?), to see if si and Zig are, in fact, correct (remember, this is a straight-forward question, about GR).

Sadly, MM chose to continue digging.

In #846, si gives the textbook (GR) answer: "GR 101. That follows immediately from time reparametrization invariance. Of course one can find definitions of the energy that aren't zero, but they amount to writing 0 = E - E (with that split done in a particular way)."

If I were MM, I'd be crimson red with embarrassment by now, having so clearly and so spectacularly demonstrated ignorance of the very thing he said he took as central to "EU theory" (i.e. "GR as taught by Einstein"), but then comes the cross-over to classical physics (no sign of any pendulum, or PS).

In post #857, Zig explains what "negative energy" is, in general: "In electromagnetism, fields store energy with a density proportional to the square of the field. If you bring two like charges together, this means that the energy stored in their electrostatic fields increased. That's why it takes energy to push them together: you do work to create positive potential energy. But gravity is different: when you bring two like gravitational charges (ie, masses) together, you get work out of it. So the energy stored in the fields is negative: the volume integral of the field squared increases as you extract work from gravity."

and makes the connection with GR: "Energy is a mathematically well-defined function. The way this function is defined in general relativity is not arbitrary, and while it may not be a unique definition, it is rigorous."

In #858, si also gives a simple - general - explanation: "Two rocks in an empty universe, at rest, far apart. Call the energy zero (or call it 2Mc^2 if you prefer). Let them go; gravity pulls them together. They accelerate, gaining kinetic energy. But total energy is conserved - so therefore their gravitational potential energy becomes more and more negative as they fall together.

Gravitational potential energy is always negative. That's primary school physics."

(still no sign of pendulums or PS)

And what does MM do? Why, accelerate his digging! (#866): "With your Gumby brand of GR, you're telling me they accelerate *away* from each other and the whole thing has a zero energy state! Talk about bizarre religions."

A few more rounds of MM displaying spectacular ignorance, not reading (or perhaps just not understanding) very simple posts that set him straight, ...

Then in post #882, temporalillusion brings the discussion back to classical physics again: "I remember talking about gravity being negative energy a looong time ago in school, and not even in the context of GR!

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the equation U = -GMm/r?

Put the radius to infinity (for zero gravity when things are infinitely far away). Anything closer is negative."

Then more acutely embarrassing stuff from MM, posts by Zig and si that clarify what the physics is, the difference between classical and GR, etc.

si's #886 contains a gem, because of how MM responds to it (in #891) ... this is just too good to pass up*:

sol: "There is nothing mysterious about negative energy in any pre-GR context - and in fact in any classical theory with point masses or point charges it is impossible to make all energies positive (because the gravitational or EM binding energy can be arbitrarily negative)."

MM: "BS. This is how I know that you're making this all up. You can in fact add and subtract and play with constants and do anything you want with the math. In the real world however *physics* matters and that is how I know your are whistling dixie on this topic. The universe is *FILLED WITH* energy. It has always had a positive energy density. In the world of actual "physics", physical particles contain and convey energy, real *positive* energy. You can't tell math from empirical physics."

Several more rounds follow, with Zig trying mightily to explain the classical physics concept to MM, and MM continuing to fail.

Then comes PS' post #920: "I am not familiar enough with the physics involved to comment on the concept of negative energy from the perspective of cosmology. However, in general, the concept of any quantity in nature being negative is one of convention from the perspective of the mathematics used. It all depends on where one puts zero. Negative points on the real line are just as valid as positive points. Similarly, any quantity that can be increased or decreased can have a negative value at some point, which will depend on where one assigns zero. It's that simple.
I can place an object on a table and decide to assign its gravitational potential energy at zero. If I raise it a few feet I can now decide it has a positive energy . If I lower it under the table it will now have a negative energy (in my coordinate system). I have no doubt that valid results can be obtained in doing physics using this convention. The fact that the energy is negative under the table has no mystical meaning; it's merely a way of doing the math."

More attempts at education follow, MM continues to fail (and continues to be very belligerent about it).

Finally, in post #937, Zig introduces the math that leads later to his killer question: "Clue for the clueless: there are plenty of physical systems with no lower limit to the potential energy. In fact, anything with an attractive 1/r2 force will produce a U = -1/r potential. You can try to make that potential positive by adding some constant (ie, U = C - 1/r), but since there's no lower limit to -1/r, the potential can always go negative no matter how big a constant you try to add. So you're completely wrong, and the proof was trivial."

PS, who's obviously been reading along, patiently, can stand it no more (#940, bold in original): "You have a fundamental problem! You make no attempt to learn from or even pay attention to any comments made here. Simply put, you are in combat and don't really make an effort to learn from or understand someone else's remarks. Your response above is nothing more than a quick knee jerk answer with no thought.
That's not science; it's dogma! You are not engaging in a scientific discussion; you are spouting blind MM dogma.
If you were to make any attempt to understand my comment above, you would realize that any system can be described as having zero energy. Then as the system evolves (in isolation) various aspects or parts of the system can have positive, zero or negative energy with the total system energy remaining at zero, which would be consistent with the conservation of energy law you know so well. That is true of the whole universe, which is a system (a big one)."

And so it goes, for at least another page or two.

It'd be really very funny ... if it weren't so sad.

Oh, and MM: all the posts are there, for anyone to read; suffice it to say that this last post of yours that I'm quoting is quite wrong (as I have just shown).

* oh, and in #890 MM introduces the pendulum ... no sign of PS ... MM quotes Zig, and the context is classical physics

 

[Ziggurat]

I never claimed it could not be *modeled* in a math formula as being "negative".

How do you think we know that energy is conserved? Why, because of our mathematical modelling. In fact, what do you think energy is? After all, it's not like there's this substance called "energy" which we can measure independently. Energy is defined by those "math formulas" you disparage. Which means if you can model it as being negative, it can be negative. Logic 101.

What I said was that you are setting an *arbitrary* zero point for an energy state when doing this. That does not "offset" the total energy of a whole physical universe

Of course it does: when you offset your potential energy, you offset your total energy. E = K + U. Offset U, and you offset E. Surely that's not too abstract a mathematical concept for you.

In the pendulum experiment, what form of energy is "negative"? Where is the potential or kinetic energy in the pendulum less than zero?

Gravitational energy, obviously. And if you use the standard zero reference for gravitational potential, its potential energy is always negative (just more negative at the bottom of the swing than at the top).

Negative relative to *WHAT*?

The standard zero reference for potentials is infinite separation. This is freshman physics here, but obviously you've never taken a freshman physics class, or you'd know this. And if we take that as our zero reference, then attractive potentials automatically have negative potential: we have no choice about the sign once that reference is chosen. Do you have a better suggestion about how to define your zero? No, I don't think you do.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In Guth's original model inflation was a meta-stable phase,

A meta-stable phase of what? "Stable" as in "hot" but not inflating? What exactly holds the "heat", and what actually 'inflates"?

and ended by a first order transition. Such transitions proceed through bubble nucleation. The problem in a nutshell is that if the nucleation rate is large, inflation ends very rapidly (and doesn't serve its purpose). It it's small, it lasts a long time, but each bubble is nearly empty - so no reheating.

Bubbles of "what"? I love how these descriptions are always so vague on specifics when it comes to what stuff is made of during this "phase transition". At no time is Guth's theory a "net zero" energy state. It began with "heat" contained in some undefined form.

In most models that work, there's no such sharp transition. The inflaton gradually rolls down a potential.

The inflation genie get's tired? How come? Did it lose all it's "net positive" heat during this roll down process?

When it gets down far enough, the potential energy ceases dominating, inflation ends, and much of the potential energy gets rapidly turned into kinetic energy and particles of various sorts.

I pointed this out quite a while ago. MM's response was that the maximum possible Casimir pressure is 1 atmosphere .

As I pointed out earlier it is "less than infinity" and closer to 1 atmosphere than it is close to infinity. We live in a molecular and atomic world where imperfections abound. You will never reach an "infinite" pressure on the plates, or you could not separate the plates again once they touched.

 

[Ziggurat]

That is simply not true. There were MANY parts he could not test at that time, but many parts he could test.

No: Einstein was not able to perform a single controlled experiment relating to general relativity.

Gravity continues to exist and it shows up in a lab.

But curvature doesn't.

Since gravity empirically exists, GR is not "woo".

That's like saying, "since the universe exists, Lambda-CDM theory is not "woo"". Crystals exist, does that mean belief in their healing power isn't woo?

At worst case it's a math model destined to be replaced

Well, damn. Maybe that's what Lambda-CDM theory is too.

He could demonstrate that gravity wasn't a figment of his imagination with nothing but his apple.

But not curvature. Without curvature, there is no general relativity.

What you fail to accept as the obvious difference between these two ideas is that gravity shows up in a lab

Curvature doesn't. Even to this day.

I therefore *can* empirically test some of Newton's math

Newton couldn't. He had absolutely no way of performing controlled experiments on his universal law of gravity. The first controlled test was done over a hundred years after he introduced his theory. And actually, I doubt you have access to anything sensitive enough to test his theory of gravity.

We observe their "effect" on real thing

So in other words, we use indirect observations along with logical inferences. Hmmm... sounds kinda like what people are doing with Lambda-CDM.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

How do you think we know that energy is conserved? Why, because of our mathematical modelling. In fact, what do you think energy is? After all, it's not like there's this substance called "energy" which we can measure independently. Energy is defined by those "math formulas" you disparage. Which means if you can model it as being negative, it can be negative. Logic 101.



Of course it does: when you offset your potential energy, you offset your total energy. E = K + U. Offset U, and you offset E. Surely that's not too abstract a mathematical concept for you.



Gravitational energy, obviously. And if you use the standard zero reference for gravitational potential, its potential energy is always negative (just more negative at the bottom of the swing than at the top).



The standard zero reference for potentials is infinite separation. This is freshman physics here, but obviously you've never taken a freshman physics class, or you'd know this. And if we take that as our zero reference, then attractive potentials automatically have negative potential: we have no choice about the sign once that reference is chosen. Do you have a better suggestion about how to define your zero? No, I don't think you do.

And you know what?

There are dozens and dozens of posts on this, with MM continuing to fail to understand (I've provided links to some of them, above).

If MM is in a state of denial wrt what he himself wrote - as seems to be the case (see above) - I doubt that repeating either explanations of some key parts of classical physics or Logic 101 will do much good, either now or ever.

Time to move on ...

 

[Ziggurat]

Time to move on ...

You are probably correct.

 

[temporalillusion]

Since I can pick up any two plates you stick together, and the atomic world is angular and "imperfect", what *experimental* evidence do you have it is going to reach infinity?

You can't reach infinity of course. I don't have to, all I have to do is take whatever number you make up for your maximum, and bring the plates a bit closer together, and exceed your maximum. So what's the maximum?

At the level of physics, I believe that the quantum force between the two plates will approach zero, and the QM force on the outside of the plates will approach it's maximum.

You completely dodged the question. What do you think happens to the pressure as the distance between the plates goes to zero, if the distance is in the denominator? Even if you disagree with it, what happens?

So even though you previously said you agreed with the wiki page on the Casimir effect, you now disagree with the derived formula (because now you're forced to deal with the implications of it maybe)?

If you disagree with the derived formula, at which point does the derivation go wrong in your opinion? In the initial calculation of the standing waves?

Well at least you are using the right word, belief.

This is in fact a question that *your side* needs to 'explain', not me.

I find it fascinating that you frame it as "your side".

But I agree someone that is knowledgeable about it would be better to answer, I was hoping someone would. Doesn't have any impact on what I'm talking about though.

Not if you're trying to suggest we live in a "net zero" energy state universe somehow. Gravity is gravity. It exists in the presence of "condensed energy". That stored energy in mass can be released again through something like annihilation. Gravity *can be* modeled in many ways, and from many various orientations. The existence of multiple objects in space and their continued acceleration would require a "net positive" energy state.

"I agree unless you are going to use it against my conclusions, so I now disagree".

Either gravity is negative energy or it isn't. You can't decide based on the conclusions you want to arrive it.

Objects in space aren't accelerating away from each other, not through space anyway.

That is simply not so. Let's start with a "two lump" scenario with one lump of matter separated by some distance from another lump of antimatter. That "distance" between the "lumps" represents "potential energy" between the objects that can be converted to "kinetic energy" at the point of impact. At the point of impact however, the energy that is contained in the two lumps is "released" via annihilation, and the remaining pieces will forever stay in motion. There is no "net zero" energy state in a universe filled with mass because the mass itself *is* energy. It's a "net positive" energy state universe that we live in.

That "distance" between the "lumps" represents "potential energy" between the objects that can be converted to "kinetic energy" at the point of impact.

You need to re-learn what kinetic energy is. The work to accelerate the objects is the kinetic energy.

Anyway, assuming the two don't just annihilate each other completely, yes the pieces remaining will be blown apart by whatever energy they absorb from the explosion. That fragment will have mass, and it will have kinetic energy which also contributes to its mass, so it will have a gravitational field which is negative. Each piece flying apart will have its own negative gravitational field, the net energy of the system can still be zero.

 

[Dancing David]

I have to say both BAC and Zeuzzz, tried to be coherent much more than MM, perhaps seperate threads for each issue?

MM is you can explain the positive ions in the electric sun model and the solar wind, than please return to the PC thread and do so.

 

[Tubbythin]

Then Einstein was engaging in woo, because he could not empirically test general relativity. Nor could Newton empirically test his theory of universal gravity. This has been pointed out to you before. Your previous answers were illogical and insufficient. You have established a standard that would exclude many of the greatest advances in physics, but don't even seem to realize it.

Its worse than that! By MM's standard Copernicus, Kepler and Gallileo were practicing woo. By MM's logic anyone who believes in a heliocentric solar system is a woo!

 

[Michael Mozina]

No: Einstein was not able to perform a single controlled experiment relating to general relativity.

He could drop an apple just like Newton and watch it fall as "predicted" by his math formulas.

But curvature doesn't.

Sure it does. It all depends on how you define gravity. Gravity holds me to my chair on a daily basis whereas inflation has never had any effect on my my entire life. Call it "curvature" or call it a "force", I "feel" gravity either way.

That's like saying, "since the universe exists, Lambda-CDM theory is not "woo"".

Huh? The universe simply exists. What does that have to do with the fact you can't demonstrate that inflation exists, or that dark energy "causes" acceleration?

Crystals exist, does that mean belief in their healing power isn't woo?

Crystals exist and have various physical properties. If you can demonstrate they have healing power, let me see you do that in a "controlled scientific test". You guys keep claiming SUSY particles do all sorts of emission tricks but you can't demonstrate they even exist in nature! Compared to healing crystal claims, you're up a creek without a paddle. At least the claim about healing crystals *might* be something that *could* be physically put to the test. Since inflation is dead now, it's hopeless to ever "test" your claim empirically in a lab with real control mechanisms.

So in other words, we use indirect observations along with logical inferences. Hmmm... sounds kinda like what people are doing with Lambda-CDM.

No. Logical inferences are things like observing acceleration and calling it "acceleration'. Logical inferences are observing no monopoles in nature and just accepting they don't exist and do not need a rational explanation for their non existence. You guys make up mythos based on hypothetical cousins of hypothetical entities galore.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have to say both BAC and Zeuzzz, tried to be coherent much more than MM, perhaps seperate threads for each issue?

MM is you can explain the positive ions in the electric sun model and the solar wind, than please return to the PC thread and do so.

Sorry DD, but you'll have to keep up with this thread if you want those answers. Right after that lengthy math presentation, Birkeland runs a whole series of experiments related to the buildup of particles from the anode on surfaces of greased plates. Did you bother reading that part of his work yet?

 

[Ziggurat]

Call it "curvature" or call it a "force", I "feel" gravity either way.

But it isn't the same theory either way. And it's not simply a matter of calling it curvature either: space is curved or it isn't curved, there's no linguistic ambiguity to the difference. Einstein claimed space was curved, but could do no controlled experiments to demonstrate that.

Crystals exist and have various physical properties. If you can demonstrate they have healing power, let me see you do that in a "controlled scientific test".

Space exists and has various physical properties. If you can demonstrate that it can be curved, let me see you do that in a "controlled scientific test". Clearly, Einstein was a woo.

 

[Michael Mozina]

"Whaaaaaaaaat? Are you trying to tell me that the universe has a net zero energy now?"

Oh for crying out loud. You are the single most unethical personal I've ever met in debate. My incredulous response was at the idea of sol trying to take their side in this debate rather than just staying out of it. It has nothing to do with his actual comments. I was surprise sol was attempting to suggest we live in a 'net zero' energy state, not at his comments, hence my question related to 'net zero energy'. Leave it to you however to "spin' it into something it was not.

In #836, Zig said: "Of course. Didn't you know? Of course not: you're clueless about GR even though you think you aren't. That's bog-standard GR, too: it applies regardless of the mechanism which stores energy, so it's a feature which is independent of dark matter, dark energy, and inflation."

Now most people, when in a hole, would stop digging ...

Now you're going to take some of sols comments, mix them with some of zigs comments and twist the whole conversation like a pretzel? Oh my. You really do not have any ethics at all, do you?

sol: "There is nothing mysterious about negative energy in any pre-GR context - and in fact in any classical theory with point masses or point charges it is impossible to make all energies positive (because the gravitational or EM binding energy can be arbitrarily negative)."

MM: "BS. This is how I know that you're making this all up. You can in fact add and subtract and play with constants and do anything you want with the math. In the real world however *physics* matters and that is how I know your are whistling dixie on this topic. The universe is *FILLED WITH* energy. It has always had a positive energy density. In the world of actual "physics", physical particles contain and convey energy, real *positive* energy. You can't tell math from empirical physics."

It was never in dispute that we can create *arbitrary* zero reference states for almost anything and have "negative" amounts of energy. We might measure temperature in Celsius and have "negative temperatures" too. There is however a difference between *total energy in the universe* and "relative energy" based on some arbitrary scale. The whole point I was trying to make to sol was that this notion that math is the only thing that matters gets you all in trouble. Just like that negative pressure in a vacuum debate. There is *positive kinetic energy* in this physical universe. It is not "offset" by gravity. Period. The arbitrary setting of a reference point is unrelated to the total net energy state of this physical universe and Guth's theory requires a "net positive" amount of "heat" to make it work.

I'm not even going to bother going through that twisted nonsense. Your personal lack of ethics is appalling. You don't even agree with inflation, you can't physically justify it and yet somehow it's all my fault. You won't answer any straight questions about Guth's theory, and why should you since you don't buy into that bogus nonsense yourself. Instead you're back to hacking at the individual and hoping nobody notices your pathetic tactics. You could step up to the plate and weigh in here on a few things.

A) Is the net energy state of the universe zero or positive or something else?
B) Is it physically possible to achieve "negative pressure" in a vacuum?
C) What "caused" the bang in your opinion?
D) What makes "dark energy" anything other than an ad hoc placeholder term?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But it isn't the same theory either way. And it's not simply a matter of calling it curvature either: space is curved or it isn't curved, there's no linguistic ambiguity to the difference. Einstein claimed space was curved, but could do no controlled experiments to demonstrate that.

You missed the key point. I can "feel" gravity. I can't tell if what I "feel" if force (sure feels like that to me actually) or "curvature", or some "quantum gravity" process that someone will later come up with. What I can tell you however is that gravity exists in nature and has an effect on nature. The math is simply a "quantification" process, whereas the "experience" is a "qualification" process. I can hope to test lots of different math formulas related to gravity because I can be sure it shows up in a lab and that gravity exists in nature even if some or all the present mathematical models prove to be incorrect and are later replaces with something "better".

Space exists and has various physical properties. If you can demonstrate that it can be curved, let me see you do that in a "controlled scientific test". Clearly, Einstein was a woo.

No. Einstein could 'feel' gravity just like me. He may not have been able to empirically verify every point of his mathematical description of gravity, but he could certainly verify it kept him in his chair everyday. Inflation never did anything to any living human on Earth.

 

[Tubbythin]

No. Einstein could 'feel' gravity just like me. He may not have been able to empirically verify every point of his mathematical description of gravity, but he could certainly verify it kept him in his chair everyday.

Really?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You can't reach infinity of course. I don't have to,

Of course you do! I don't believe it's going to reach infinity in the *real world* with *real things*.

all I have to do is take whatever number you make up for your maximum, and bring the plates a bit closer together, and exceed your maximum. So what's the maximum?

How will you physically bring them closer together in a real experiment, or are you relying only on a math equation again? You seem to believe that there is no rational justification for "skepticism" as it relates to your math. In a "perfect" universe, in a "perfect" experiment it might reach an entirely different maximum. In the real world however it's never going to get get close to infinity and will always be much close to 1 atmosphere than to infinity.

You completely ignore the *physics* part of this debate......again! In a real world, there are real limitation, and your mathematical models are only useful approximations with various physical limits imposed by the sizes of atoms, etc. I'm going to skip the redundant stuff.

Anyway, assuming the two don't just annihilate each other completely, yes the pieces remaining will be blown apart by whatever energy they absorb from the explosion. That fragment will have mass, and it will have kinetic energy which also contributes to its mass, so it will have a gravitational field which is negative. Each piece flying apart will have its own negative gravitational field, the net energy of the system can still be zero.

It's not a "net zero" energy state! Each of the fragments has (already possess) kinetic energy and even more energy that is stored inside the mass. That internal energy can be released again should it happen to collide with any other particle of it's antimattter/matter counterpart. Matter *is* energy. Gravity is simply gravity. Any form of remaining matter is still a form of energy and it can be released by further and further matter/antimatter annihilation.

 

[Ziggurat]

You missed the key point. I can "feel" gravity.

That's a rather... unscientific criteria for evaluating what counts as science.

The math is simply a "quantification" process

No, it is not: either space is physically curved, or it is not. The distinction is NOT simply math.

He may not have been able to empirically verify every point of his mathematical description of gravity

He wasn't able to test any points of his theory in a controlled experiment.