Viktor Toth and Wikipedia contradict on cosmic inflation

The role of a physicist is not to DESCRIBE the workings of the Universe mathematically. It takes no gray matter to measure and describe. The role of a physicist is to EXPLAIN its invisible mechanisms.

.

“Science… is not decided by appeals to authority, but by the logic of our argument and consistency with the facts” but then… “I call as my witness Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg… Vladimir Mukhanov… John Peacock… myself… I rest my case” Viktor Toth

Typical mathematical duality! Sounds like the eternal [should I say ‘infinite’] contradictions the non-physicist relishes and lives with! “Science is not about authority, tradition, or democracy… but we’ve already voted for theories that we’ve declared to be facts and won’t allow any challenge to them because our glorious great white fathers Einstein and Bohr could not have erred in their physical interpretations of spacetime and particles and were proven to be right time and again. We won’t allow challenges to our physical interpretations! We rest our case.”

Hmmm… So… what is the issue before us? Whether space itself had a beginning? Whether this ‘thing’ expands or inflates? These are indeed questions a genuine physicist must answer and has no trouble answering.

The first thing we must realize is that the issue before us requires no numbers or variables. The question only requires that we define the terms we use to convey the argument.

something (object): that which has shape

nothing (space): that which has no shape

Something and nothing are antonyms. Now we simply apply the definitions. Nothing cannot surreptitiously acquire length, width, and height and become something. Something cannot spontaneously lose length, width and height and morph into nothing. Skeptics are welcome to explain the transformation mechanisms otherwise. Matter and space had no beginning and will have no end, and both inflation and expansion be damned!

.

“the metrical field (aka. the physical, dynamical gravitational field that can carry energy and momentum in the form of gravitational waves)” Viktor Toth

So says an alleged expert on gravitation and cosmology! And yet…

field: a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time

[Sorry. I used the Wikipedia as a source. Is that okay? Is that authoritative enough? Or should I quote an award-winning mathematician…]

Field: Something that exists throughout space and time, as opposed to a particle that exists at only one point at a time. S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time [Glossary] (1987)

[I just hope Hawking is high enough on the pecking order to convince the jurors. And then, again, he just vaguely stated that ‘field’ is a ‘something’. Perhaps by ‘something’ he meant ‘that which we can see or touch’ or maybe ‘collection of matter’… Is that WHAT ‘a’ field IS?]

energy: the quantitative property that is transferred to a body Wikipedia

“It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is.” Richard Feynman, Feynman Lectures, p. 4-1

So… how does ‘the’ quantity ‘field’ carry ‘the’ quantity ‘energy’? What kind of language is that, anyway? What can we learn about the physical workings of the Universe with such irrational street gang jargon? “Yo bro. Me and my homies have all them fields that carry energy. Ya need some?”

.

“the time-dependent parameter a(t)… does not make space expand or “swell”… particles of dust flying away from each other. A flight… that can be stopped if there is mutual attraction” Viktor Toth

Here we are in the 21st Century and the non-physicists are still running around in circles discussing the expansion / inflation of nothing. The only reason for this is that they never defined the word nothing. Spending space and time so frivolously developing countless equations describing the workings of nothing seems to be a complete waste of taxpayers’… patience.

.

.