1. You have not argued you have asserted and done nothing but assert .

2. As credentials where are yours again ?

3. What was that about self made qualifications ?

4. Well engage with the arguments when there YOUR arguments

---

(July 1, 2017 at 1:00 am)Alex K Wrote: @MoY
Are you mad, of course I'm not posting any sort of ID here to prove something to random ppl. Let it go, we can either talk about things like normal people, or not. In your case it's no fun.

But you have been refuted because you got the date of a book wrong . apparently

---

Quote:Bullshit. I'm saying there a lot of cosmologists, and it's not possible for you to have either read or communicated with most of them. You'll need to demonstrate the truth of your assertion that most cosmologists share Hawking's view of the beginnings of the Universe, or moderate your assertion with something more intellectually honest, like: "In my limited experience as an amateur physics enthusiast, it seems to me that. .

Considering I listed at least on physicist who does not agree with Hawkings and another who disagrees with Yesmens definition of singularity .......

This thread has become so cringe-inducing… I really feel bad for some of you. Wow.

You’re asking me to provide evidence for the claim that most cosmologists believe that the Big Bang model contains a singularity? That’s like asking me for evidence that most biologists believe that evolution involves genetic mutations.

And it looks like you’re also asking me to provide evidence that a singularity is a function with infinite values like infinite space-time curvature, density, and heat. Correct? Again, wow. Just… wow.

My initial response is… look it up…  and that it should be trivially easy for you to demonstrate if I’m incorrect if I’m indeed incorrect. The fact that you couldn’t do that is itself interesting, don’t you think?

Yes… the Big Bang model… contains a singularity. That’s what the Big Bang model is. I’m legitimately confused by your line of questioning. Or are you asking me if it is true that most cosmologists accept the Big Bang model as the best model for the beginnings of the universe? The answer to that question is also yes; and if you were up-to-date in your scientific knowledge, then this would obvious to you as well—but you aren’t.

In any case,

“Similary in physics, a singularity usually refers to a point of infinity, and thus a not-well-defined point. In other words, physics breaks down at a singularity (we cannot describe it with our known physical laws - infinite mass or infinite energy is not something we expect from our nature)…For example, when we study the beginning of Big Bang or the inside of a black hole, we use general relativity. However, both cases have a singularity”
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=28470

By the way, the aforementioned quote took me about 10 seconds to find. You couldn’t do that? No, you could have, but you’re not interested in learning. You’re more interested in “winning.” Please notice that the physics professor just assumed the Big Bang contains a singularity. Why? Because that’s what the Big Bang model is, you dolt… I don’t know how else to put this to you.

As for the question of the Big Bang model being the most widely accepted cosmological model… that’s a little trickier because it involves you reading scientific literature and listening to what cosmologists have to say to get a feel for what the consensus is. But you obviously don’t do that, which is why you’re asking all of these dumb questions.

Nevertheless, here are some sources from institutions of learning claiming that the big bang is the most widely accepted model:
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/pub/tutorial/bigbang.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmol...ml#bestfit
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth1.html
 

Quote:Bullshit. I'm saying there a lot of cosmologists, and it's not possible for you to have either read or communicated with most of them.

I’m not so certain. We would have to first total the number of cosmologists there are in the world and then define what we mean by “most.” Until then, I’m going to have to remain agnostic with respect to the idea that it’s logically impossible for a person to read or communicate with most cosmologists.

Quote:This statement is incoherent. You're saying I've discarded your arguments based on a portrayal of your person. In fact, I've never discarded your arguments at all, or even suggested that they are false. You can't have an argumentum ad hominem when you're not making an argument.

Your entire post focused on you speculating on what I read and watch in an effort to discredit my arguments. Next time, focus on my arguments.

Quote: and you demonstrating a vast lack of knowledge of anything conceived in the last several decades.

You are such a retard. Lol.

Let me just throw this in here for good measure because I think it's funny.

"The phrase "Big Bang" summarises the most widely accepted scientific theory of how the  developed into its present state."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I think rationalwiki is garbage, but you seem like a fellow who reads rationalwiki.

And... it's outa here. *crowd cheers*

Hey Alex: I still haven't forgotten that you haven't provided any evidence that you're a physicist. Hack.

---

(July 1, 2017 at 1:08 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Considering I listed at least on physicist who does not agree with Hawkings and another who disagrees with Yesmens definition of singularity .......

Oh my goodness....

It's not my definition. It's the definition. Are you really this much of a retard?

Thanks for the 15 year-old links on the basics of BBT.  I had to put my browser into forced Legacy Mode to view one of them properly.  Very useful.  However, nobody here has argued against the idea of the Big Bang.  From the start, you have been asked to support a position about whether time is past-finite or not.  I have found only one article which asserts that time is observably past-finite, but most, including your links, state that it is either a matter much debated, or one which is unknowable.

http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/pub/tutorial/bigbang.html
-This article doesn't really mention time at all, much less whether there was anything before the BBT, but it clearly doesn't share your level of confidence: "So how did it all start? A very good question, and one that is highly debated."

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBB
-This article only mentions that time is undefined at t=0, and says "In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting information from outside our own one bubble."  So time exists before the BB, but we don't have access to it.  Hardly a resounding support for your thesis, either.

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth1.html
"But the theory says nothing about the underlying physics of the primordial explosion. It gives not even a clue about what banged, what caused it to bang, or what happened before it banged."

If the writer of this article was so sure of what the "majority of cosmologists believe," i.e. had a specific view on whether time is past-eternal, he sounds decidedly unsure.


Even Hawking dismisses pre-BB time on a pragmatic basis:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."

Basically, this is your view: don't know what happened before BB, so let's say nothing happened!  Check. . . and mate!

(but then QM and string theory entered the scene, and the math starts to look a lot different. . . hence Alex' questions for you, which you dodged and then raged about for about 10 pages)

Try the following for a physical theory that was created after Internet Time was first formed: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu...verse.html

Quote:It's not my definition. It's the definition. Are you really this much of a retard?

I'm not a retard and no it's not "the" Definition no matter how much you insist it is .



And further even the rational wiki article you site gives you problems with your god bothering BS

Quote:In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking outlines the mathematical use of imaginary time which results in the description of the universe as being of a hyperspherical nature without start or end — these being merely points on a "surface" undistinguished from others. The upshot is that the requirement for "start" and "cause" are removed, as is the need for faith (a concept which has no place in science

Benny, bud… it’s time to stop.





Benny… you’re not intelligent, I’m sorry. I understand that I’ve hurt your ego and I know that deep down inside you're struggling with the realization that I’m more intelligent and knowledgeable than you are, but that’s OK. You’re going to get through this. Alright? Let’s start from the beginning again.

You asked me to support three points that I’ve made over the course of this thread. Remember? I wrote,

“[The] big bang is a singularity? Yes, most cosmologists do believe that. Or are you referring to my definition of singularity? Yes, most cosmologists also agree with my definition of a singularity.”

And you responded with,

“Okay, that's an assertion. Now demonstrate that your assertion is correct.”

So it seems you wanted me to address at least two points. Right? Good. Here are the two points (and I threw in a third one for good measure):

One, a singularity is point of infinite mass, heat, space-time curvature, etc. Two, the Big Bang model contains a singularity. Three, the Big Bang model is the most widely accepted view in cosmology.

For the first and second points,

“Similary in physics, a singularity usually refers to a point of infinity, and thus a not-well-defined point. In other words, physics breaks down at a singularity (we cannot describe it with our known physical laws - infinite mass or infinite energy is not something we expect from our nature)…For example, when we study the beginning of Big Bang or the inside of a black hole, we use general relativity. However, both cases have a singularity”
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/list...p?id=28470

This question was asked in 2015, not that it matters. Remember Benny, it doesn’t matter how old an argument, hypothesis, or theory is. What matters is if it’s true.

For the first, second, and third points:

“You have probably heard the term "Big Bang" before when people start to talk about the origins of the universe, but when people tell you that the universe started really small (tinier than a grain of sand) and incredibly dense, and then suddenly expanded to what it is today, things become a little more difficult to grasp. The theory of a Hot Big Bang is the most widely accepted hypothesis for the origin of the universe”
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/pub/tutorial/bigbang.html

For the third point:

“What is the currently most accepted model for the Universe?
The current best fit model is a flat ΛCDM Big Bang model where the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, and the age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years.”
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmol...ml#bestfit

For the third point:

“Today the Big Bang theory, which began with Friedmann's calculations in 1922, has become the accepted view of cosmology.”
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth1.html

For the first and second points:

“At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down.“
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Moreover, the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang model supports my first, second, and third points. The article opens with,

“The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe[1]”

And the article provides a “timeline section” in which there’s the entry, “Singularity.” The first line in the Singularity section reads,

“Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[14]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity

And the atheist/secular Wiki, rationalwiki, has an article for the Big Bang model and the article opens with, “The phrase "Big Bang" summarises the most widely accepted scientific theory of how the universe developed into its present state.” That seems to support my third point.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Big_Bang

So I don’t know what to do with you at this point, Benny. I’m starting to worry about your psychological health. Are you going to ignore all of these sources? Are you going to continue to believe that a singularity is not a function with infinite values? Are you going to continue to believe that the Big Bang doesn’t have a singularity? Are you going to continue to believe that the Big Bang model isn’t the most widely accepted cosmological model for the universe? Remember, this is what you asked me to demonstrate.

Quote:From the start, you have been asked to support a position about whether time is past-finite or not.

Benny, remember, I wrote,

“[The] big bang is a singularity? Yes, most cosmologists do believe that. Or are you referring to my definition of singularity? Yes, most cosmologists also agree with my definition of a singularity.”

And you responded with,

“Okay, that's an assertion. Now demonstrate that your assertion is correct.”

I’ve done what you’ve asked me to do. Haven’t I? Are you trying to move the goal posts now, Benny? We can talk about time now if you want, but not until you concede that I’ve fulfilled your original request.

Quote:Even Hawking dismisses pre-BB time on a pragmatic basis:

Benny, you never asked me about time. Remember, I wrote,

“[The] big bang is a singularity? Yes, most cosmologists do believe that. Or are you referring to my definition of singularity? Yes, most cosmologists also agree with my definition of a singularity.”

And you responded with,

“Okay, that's an assertion. Now demonstrate that your assertion is correct.”

Are you just dyslexic? I don’t get it. You also mentioned something about every single one of my sources being 15 years old... What? For shits and giggles, can you provide evidence for that claim? And then afterwards, can you explain to me why that's even relevant?

Quote:but then QM and string theory entered the scene, and the math starts to look a lot different

I like how you wrote, "and the math starts to look a lot different," as though you understand what's going on. You fucking pseudo-intellectual asshat.

Currently, we don't have a quantum theory of gravity and even if we did, it wouldn't miraculously change the definition of a singularity. It would just avoid singularities. Big difference. Do you mean to tell me that you're going to stick your head in the sand until there is a quantum theory of gravity? "La-la-la-la-la... big bang model doesn't exist... i don't understand what a singularity is.... la-la-la-la... the big bang doesn't have singularities.... la-la-la" Dude, there's something wrong with you.

(July 1, 2017 at 3:34 am)ManofYesterday Wrote: Benny… you’re not intelligent, I’m sorry. I understand that I’ve hurt your ego and I know that deep down inside, you know that I’m more intelligent and knowledgeable than you are, but that’s OK.

Bored now.

Yeah...I'm out of here

Sign same here

This shit gets old

Of course you're outa of here. You should have been outa here 8 hours ago. You're not going to win a debate with me because I, unlike Alex and everyone else on this forum, understands how to reason; and I actually read science and philosophy. This is what happens when an actual intellectual comes up against a pack of pseudo-intellectual ass clowns.

Scatter, cockroaches, scatter.



And I'm still waiting for the evidence that demonstrates that Alex is a physicist.

(July 1, 2017 at 3:34 am)ManofYesterday Wrote: I have no ideas of my own, but I can copy and paste. Also, Hawking! Also. . . you are all fucking retards, and. . . you're not even smart and. . . RETARDS! *starts crying and having a temper tantrum*