I'm going to make one reply, then I'm done, because, first, I was trying to assiste Perpetual Student in gaining a general understanding ( a visualization concept), not to rigourously define the properties and interactions involved, and second because you obviously won't listen to any evidence or ideas that conflict with your pet theories. That being said, here we go.
Let me see any of them "counterbalance" gravity with inflation here on Earth. It ain't gonna happen. They made it up.
No. The properties of the filed were determined by trying to find out what type of field would produce effects consistent with current observations. It wasn't just "made up". It would be similar to someone finding a crater, with bits of debris scattered around it. You can look at the properties of the crater and debris (range of scatter, directionality of the crater, heat damage versus physical damage, etc) to determine the properties of what made the explosion.
You can't 'counter"" anything with gravity. All mass has energy. All mass has a gravitational influence on all other forms of mass. Period.
See, but who's added mass? You're adding things into it that aren't there. The inflation field expands
space, not mass.
How might that happen? You've added more mass, and therefore more gravity and more energy to the system. Gravity doesn't "counterbalance" squat. It is simply a property of mass and energy.
Again, there is no mass. If you're going to argue against the model, you need to argue against the theory, not against your misconceptions of the model.
That's the "baloney" part right there. Mass and energy are interchangeble. Gravity isn't "negative" anything, it's just "gravity".
And you keep bringing up mass. We're talking about energy. And mass and energy are not interchangeable in the sense you use the term. They can be converted into each other, but they aren't equivalent in every degree. In any case, that's more of a shorthand description (that's what those littlew " marks mean, you know..that it isn't entirely accurate). In any case, the equations show that as space expands, gravity increases within the inflated area. The sum of this increase counterbalances the energy in the inflation field. By coyunterbalances I mean that (increase in gravitational energy within the inflated area)=(increase in energy of the inflation field).
If this were all true, then they should have no trouble building a spaceship based on inflation so they can counterbalance gravity and going flying away into the sunset. So far, 25 years after they jumped on the bandwagon, the whole lot of them can't get inflation to move of single atom here on Earth. Ya right. It's mathematical mythos and it's a bunch of baloney.
Are you really this obtuse? "If fusion were right, they should have no problem building a spaceship to use this and fly away into the sunset." "If fission were right, they should have no problem building a spaceship and...". How long was it from the basic ideas of atoms to the concept of fission? Can we build a fission rocket right now? How long ago was the concept of fusion developed? And where are we with even trying to create a self-sustaining fusion reaction? I don't believe anyone has even hit the break-even point yet, much less achieved any net gain in a fusion reaction. Yet there's very little doubt that this is what keeps the sun going. And we know both fusion and fission occur. Not to mention that, again, if you actually
understood the model you're arguing against you'd know that there are very specific conditions required for something like an inflation field. When we have the ability to create energy densities similar to that shortly after the big bang, we might be able to create an inflationary field of some sort (assuming the model hasn't been replaced by better ones by that time). This argument is perhaps your most telling one, as it shows your complete and utter ignorance of the theories and models you're trying to argue against.
Unfortunately it is actually a relatively accurate portrayal of Guth's ideas, and they stink to high heaven. Not one single product runs on inflation. I can show you tons of products in Walmart that run on "electricity". Unfortunately "electricity" is the one forbidden topic of astronomy so they just make stuff up as they go now.
No, it's not accurate, and I know that. My post was not meant to be accurate, it was simply meant to try and illustrate a particular part of the theory (and let those with more expertise on current models make additional comments if needed). The fact that you believe it to be an accurate protrayal again shows that you are not one fo those with expertise on current models. You're just another Salemite screaming "burn the witch!" in an attempt to pull down your "adversaries" and promote your own brand of nonsense.
).