Matter and energy can be past-eternal

[Alex K]

Yup.

[ManofYesterday]

The statements the big bang is a singularity and the statement classic physics breaks down at the big bang are not mutually exclusive. That's your first problem. In fact, the reason why physics (as we know it) breaks down is because the big bang is a singularity.

In which sense precisely "is the big bang" a singularity?


Don't be silly and stop simply restating that "scientific evidence points to a cosmic beginning" and be more concrete.

Do you not know what a singularity is?

The big bang is a point of infinite mass, heat, and space-time curvature. It's a singularity.

"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. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang." -- Stephen Hawking

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. You're another know-nothing pseudo-intellectual. And what do you mean stop saying scientific evidence points to a cosmic beginning? You obviously don't read scientific literature. You didn't even know what a singularity is; and you thought the big bang being a singularity contradicts the statement that the big bang breaks down in terms of classic physics.

[Alex K]

Now you're copypasting some snippets from a popular science book from 1988 and resort to insults instead of arguments. So you obviously have no clue at all what you are talking about. So long.

[Alex K]

It's a beautiful litmus test. Ask some questions, get insults back where anyone with a shred of real knowledge would respond with clarifications, and you know you are dealing with a phony. This particular one seems very familiar, too. I wonder which sock we are dealing with here.

[ManofYesterday]

Now you're copypasting some snippets from a popular science book from 1988 and resort to insults instead of arguments. So you obviously have no clue at all what you are talking about. So long.

I wrote that the big bang itself is considered a singularity by contemporary cosmologists.

You responded by saying, “past singularities one encounters in cosmological models are merely points where classical relativity breaks down,” and then went on to ask me, “In which sense precisely "is the big bang" a singularity?”

Regardless of how one interprets this, the correct conclusion is you don’t know what you’re talking about. A singularity and the statement “classical physics break down” are not mutually exclusive. You actually said at the big bang physics breaks down, which means it’s a singularity, but then you went on to ask me how the big bang is a singularity. The mind boggles.

Then I’m called a troll for knowing what I’m talking about.

Then I quote Stephen Hawking who wrote, “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. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang." -- Stephen Hawking

And this is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Now you want to run away. Very interesting.

By the way, just because a theory is old doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Number theory is old. The law of gravity was discovered by Newton in the 1600s. Regardless, this snippet isn’t from a book written in 1988. It’s from Stephen Hawking’s blog and it’s a lecture from 1996. By the way, at the end of the lecture he concludes with, “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.” Here’s the entry, by the way: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

By the way, he doesn't offer a retraction of his statements on his blog nor has he provided an update saying "just kidding guys."

So, yes, you don’t know what you’re talking about and yes, you should step away.

[Amarok]

You bring up an old out of date layman's book I raise you an actual scientist





Oh and as for Alex he's not running away he's knows more about this stuff in his sleep then you know at your best

Oh and here is Carroll spanking someone using the same nonsense you are

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog...flections/

[ignoramus]

I'm with you all the way OP.
I also say Godditit to most things too.

Forget the bigbang. Let's special plead infinite regress into existence instead!

[Amarok]

Indeed if you come up against a hard problem declare god done it and give up .

[ManofYesterday]

You bring up an old out of date layman's book I raise you an actual scientist





Oh and as for Alex he's not running away he's knows more about this stuff in his sleep then you know at your best

Oh and here is Carroll spanking someone using the same nonsense you are

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/02/24/post-debate-reflections/

Alex doesn't know what he's talking about. I've already demonstrated that in this thread. No amount of cheerleader is going to change that. For instance, he doesn't understand what a singularity is. That's a very basic concept.

Second, Stephen Hawking is an actual scientist.

Third, Carroll didn't spank anyone in that debate. He got spanked. But if you want to explain to me how he won that debate, I'm all ears.

Fourth, what part of your video is relevant to this discussion? Carrol is throwing out a bunch of possibilities and claims, but possibilities and bare claims are cheap. I'm interested in what is plausible, evidence based, and reasonable. At the end of the video he talks about the multiverse, but he admits there's no evidence for it--so it might as well be called metaphysics at that point. David Gross, nobel prize winner, thinks the multiverse is bullshit and equates it to "it smells of angels." According to him, most physicists are uncomfortable with this type of empirically baseless metaphysical thinking in science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEx5rWfz2ow

[ManofYesterday]

I'm with you all the way OP.
I also say Godditit to most things too.

Forget the bigbang. Let's special plead infinite regress into existence instead!

Except, nobody did that in this thread. I think you may be another dyslexic retard who pretends to read science. Watching a five minute clip on YouTube of Sean Carroll speculating (he's a theoretical physicist after all) isn't the same as cracking open an actual textbook on physics; and Carroll's speculations aren't indicative of what most cosmologists believe--nor are they indicative of where the evidence points to. The fact that you think the multiverse is considered plausible by most cosmologists (at the present moment) shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

Alex also doesn't know what he's talking about. I've already demonstrated that in this thread. No amount of cheerleader is going to change that. For instance, he doesn't understand what a singularity is. And I made that painfully clear in this thread. That's a very basic concept. "[Alex] he's knows more about this stuff in his sleep then you know at your best" He is knows? English is hard. If that's the case then tell him to come back while he's sleepwalking.

Stephen Hawking is an actual scientist. You don't think he is? Again, you're retarded.

Carroll didn't spank anyone in that debate. He got spanked. But if you want to explain to me how he won the debate, I'm all ears.

Finally, what part of your video is relevant to this discussion? Carroll is throwing out a bunch of possibilities and claims, but possibilities and bare claims are cheap. I'm interested in what is plausible, evidence based, and reasonable. Sean Carroll should read up on Occam's Razor. Cosmologists think the entropy around the big bang was zero or close to it. The entropy level is higher now. This seems to point to a beginning--but instead of going that route, Carroll starts getting into metaphysics, positing multiple universes and other wishy-washy ideas that there is no evidence for; indeed, it may be the case that it's impossible to even observe these other universes even if they do exist! He may as well be positing Leprechauns. To his credit, he admits there's no evidence for other universes, let alone an infinite number of them. David Gross, nobel prize winner, thinks the multiverse is bullshit and equates it to "it smells of angels." According to him, most physicists are uncomfortable with this type of empirically baseless metaphysical thinking in science. So instead of saying "god dun it" you're saying "the multiverse dun it." Ironic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEx5rWfz2ow