Matter and energy can be past-eternal

[Whateverist]

Seriously? You really think he is going to put documents with his real name on it online on a dare from an obvious troll. Get real.

[Amarok]

Indeed umm privacy

[bennyboy]

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

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

According to you, Alex has less scientific knowledge than a child.

I rest my case.

Another point for me.

Alex, when are you going to provide evidence that you're a physicist? Fucking hack.

You still haven't answered his question. He didn't say "No, dummy, the Big Bang isn't considered a singularity by Cosmologists." He elucidated on the modern perspective, and then asked you to refine your position: what do the words you're saying actually mean to you?

You seem to be working pretty hard to pick up these "points," like you're trying to win a match. You should understand that this is just you doing kung-fu kicks in the air and shouting "Keeyaahh" over and over, and that everyone else is just standing around with bemused expressions, wondering "What the fuck is this guy trying to prove?"

I'm guessing it's cognitive dissonance. In your little corner of the world, you're the smartest guy around, and coming into a place where you are a small fry is challenging your delicate world view. But whatever led you to have such a high opinion of yourself isn't a testament to you-- it's only a testament to how small and unenriching your intellectual environment has been so far.

[brewer]

I'll tell you why. And I mean this very seriously. When I was a child my mother and father would beat me. I got it the most from my father though. This has created a strange relationship between myself and my parents. On one hand, I love them because they're my parents while on the other, I hate them because they used to beat me.

I'm also angry about my acne. I have a ton of acne, all over my face, despite me being an adult. Why? I wash my face twice a day, use toner, etc., and I still get acne. It's disgusting and makes the women run like hell, which brings me to my next point.

I have a small penis. It's not a micropenis (thank Dawkins), but it's still very small. So even on the off chance I'm able to seduce a woman and bring her back to my parent's place (I still live with my parents as an adult), they laugh and run away at the sight of my small penis. I'll never be able to please a woman. Do you know what that feels like? Probably not. Your penis is at least average, maybe even large.

What's more, I'm an adult (19) who is still going to middle school. I've been held back a few times because I lack the motivation to do homework. That's why I kept capitalizing Computer Scientist. You're not the retard. I am. And my parents don't help or seem to care. They think I'm stupid. Instead of providing support and motivation, they yell at and threaten me.

There... you happy?

"There... you happy?" is a bit passive aggressive but I'm not surprised based on your past behavior.

You say I should take you "very seriously" but I don't think you can fault me if I have some doubts. You have demonstrated manipulative behavior in other posts. Part of me is wondering if this is yet another attempt at manipulation. I'll consider the accuracy of this post when compared to future posts.

Can you tell us why your parents beat you? What was their motivation? 

Acne is very treatable. Washing your face twice a day may not be enough. I suggest that you consult your primary physician or a dermatologist. If you're using an OTC acne treatment (allopathic, not naturopathic) product and it is not working you need to try others. Not all of them work the same for/on each individual. A new product hit the market around 6 months ago. Also, if a woman can't see past the acne is she really worth knowing. 

Penis size does not make they man or confer the ability to please a woman. At this point I'm not sure I can convince you of that. You might need to consider that the women are laughing and running for other reasons, not only perceived penis size. 

Middle school age here is 13 to 14. I'm having a bit of difficulty believing that a school (the administration) would let a 19 yr old in the same classroom/halls. Are you segregated from them or monitored in some fashion? Or are you in a different school/classroom setting? Also, have you been evaluated by an educational diagnostic professional? If so, what did they say? If not, why not?

Here is the big question, why do you feel the need to vent your misdirected anger (this includes lying) on people you don't even really know? What is the reward are you getting from this behavior? Is it for a feeling of superiority? Or is it a defense mechanism (I know you'll reject me so I'll reject preemptively)?

[Amarok]

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

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

According to you, Alex has less scientific knowledge than a child.

I rest my case.

Another point for me.

Alex, when are you going to provide evidence that you're a physicist? Fucking hack.

You still haven't answered his question.  He didn't say "No, dummy, the Big Bang isn't considered a singularity by Cosmologists."  He elucidated on the modern perspective, and then asked you to refine your position: what do the words you're saying actually mean to you?

You seem to be working pretty hard to pick up these "points," like you're trying to win a match.  You should understand that this is just you doing kung-fu kicks in the air and shouting "Keeyaahh" over and over, and that everyone else is just standing around with bemused expressions, wondering "What the fuck is this guy trying to prove?"

I'm guessing it's cognitive dissonance.  In your little corner of the world, you're the smartest guy around, and coming into a place where you are a small fry is challenging your delicate world view.  But whatever led you to have such a high opinion of yourself isn't a testament to you-- it's only a testament to how small and unenriching your intellectual environment has been so far.

Is honestly trying to argue that Alex argued the big bang considered a singularity. When what he did was define what singularity means same as Carroll(a cosmologist or does he have to show his degrees  to ) in the post Alex linked .  I could point out others who define singularity that same way .

Once again  referring to Carroll

The definition of “singularity in the past” is not really the same as “had a beginning” — it means that some geodesics must eventually come to an end. (Others might not.) Most importantly, I don’t think that any result dealing with classical spacetimes can teach us anything definitive about the beginning of the universe. The moment of the Big Bang is, if anything is, a place where quantum gravity is supremely important. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin results are simply not about quantum gravity

This elaborates even further

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmic...Vb_BPWcG1s

[ManofYesterday]

The main issue here is most of you are stupid and uneducated; however, this website exists in a subculture that alleges to champion skepticism (conveniently ignored in lieu of Alex's credentials), evidence, and science. So, there’s this bizarre mish-mash of low IQ middle-aged adults and children who think they’re smart because they’re part of the so-called skeptic community; yet, none of you have ever cracked open a book about physics or mathematics. I’d be surprised if any of you have ever graduated from college with a degree in the hard sciences (a real degree). Even when a person explains things to you in a plain and concise manner, you still don’t understand. With that being said, let’s start again.

At the beginning, I said the big bang is a singularity, and I defined it here https://atheistforums.org/thread-49668-p...pid1577204 with "The big bang is a point of infinite mass, heat, and space-time curvature. It's a singularity."

Cthulhu Dreaming then responded with, “This is not something that can be stated as a matter of fact with any degree of certainty.” Alex gave Kudos to this post. That’s interesting in itself and it foreshadowed a little of what happened afterwards.
 
Alex then wrote, “I would assume that most cosmologists would agree that any past singularities one encounters in cosmological models are merely points where classical relativity breaks down”

The first nail in Alex’s coffin. Of course cosmologists think singularities are parts where classical physics breaks down. A singularity is when there are infinite values like infinite curvature, density, heat, etc.; and because of these infinite values, classical physics breaks down. Put another way, in what other way would a cosmologist think of a singularity? There isn’t another way because that’s just what a singularity is. So it would seem Alex doesn’t completely understand what a singularity is; otherwise, why would he state something so redundant and obvious?

Alex then followed up with, “In which sense precisely ‘is the big bang’ a singularity?” The second nail. In what way is it not? If a cosmologist says the big bang is a singularity, then that means the big bang represents a point where there was infinite curvature, infinite heat, infinite density, etc. In what other sense could it be a singularity? Again, it would appear Alex doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

It was at this point that I quoted a 1996 blog entry (lecture) by renowned physicist Stephen Hawking which echoed my own sentiments, “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.”

Afterwards, Alex made the mistake of saying the above citation is from a book published in 1988. It isn’t. It’s from 1996 and it’s on Stephen Hawking’s blog. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html And, yes, I know that this material is a rehashing of the material found in A Brief History of Time, but the point is this particular citation is from a lecture in 1996. Moreover, age by itself doesn’t matter when it comes to truth. Number Theory is extremely old and so is Newton’s theory of gravity (from the 1600s). Special Relativity is also relatively old. The fact that Alex would mention age as though that’s some sort of litmus test for truth demonstrates that he’s an idiot. Of course he’s not a physicist. By the way, Stephen Hawking mentioned this singularity in a 2008 lecture as well, “We showed that the universe couldn't bounce. If Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is correct, there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and spacetime curvature, where time has a beginning.” 

It’s also worth mentioning that there aren’t any updates or edits on Hawkings' page that read, “Just kidding…” or “This stuff is too old, don’t worry about it.”

So, uh, Alex… when are you going to provide evidence of your credentials? Hack.

[bennyboy]

Again, you are quoting a source that almost everyone here has read (at least in this thread), and you are ignoring more recent sources.

You've made an assertion-- not that your view of the BBT is valid, but that most cosmologists believe it to be true. Your support for this sweeping assertion is that you've read or talked with "most cosmologists," an assertion which can only be false. The truth is that you've read at least one popular science book (written for laypeople) and one blog, both by Hawking, and have not demonstrated knowledge of any other writer, or of any challenges from other schools of thought, or of the proofs for or against them.

Alex has pretty specifically described how QM might inform modern views on the Big Bang, and given a link for you to read. You, in turn, have done nothing at all to engage with any of the new content you've been posed with. You just keep crowing about how Hawking said it (true), and how the majority of cosmologists insist it's true (unproven and possibly false).

You need to roll up your sleeves and engage in the content being provided to you, and MAKE SOME IDEAS OF YOUR OWN in response to them. There are thousands of papers, or at least abstracts of papers, thousands of blogs, thousands of threads in physics forums, and thousands or millions of videos about the Big Bang, about QM, and about a lot of things related to them. And your response to all this huge amount of intellectual struggle and exploration is:

"Hawking. Shut up! You don't know anything. Do you even PHYSICS, bro?!?!?!"

You are smart enough to put together grammatical sentences (mostly). Why don't you turn some of your intellect toward learning new things, and then come back and engage in a more informed, and therefore more interesting, discussion?

[ManofYesterday]

Again, you are quoting a source that almost everyone here has read (at least in this thread), and you are ignoring more recent sources.

You've made an assertion-- not that your view of the BBT is valid, but that most cosmologists believe it to be true.  Your support for this sweeping assertion is that you've read or talked with "most cosmologists," an assertion which can only be false.  The truth is that you've read at least one popular science book (written for laypeople) and one blog, both by Hawking, and have not demonstrated knowledge of any other writer, or of any challenges from other schools of thought, or of the proofs for or against them.

Alex has pretty specifically described how QM might inform modern views on the Big Bang, and given a link for you to read.   You, in turn, have done nothing at all to engage with any of the new content you've been posed with.  You just keep crowing about how Hawking said it (true), and how the majority of cosmologists insist it's true (unproven and possibly false).

You need to roll up your sleeves and engage in the content being provided to you, and MAKE SOME IDEAS OF YOUR OWN in response to them.  There are thousands of papers, or at least abstracts of papers, thousands of blogs, thousands of threads in physics forums, and thousands or millions of videos about the Big Bang, about QM, and about a lot of things related to them.  And your response to all this huge amount of intellectual struggle and exploration is:

"Hawking.  Shut up!  You don't know anything.  Do you even PHYSICS, bro?!?!?!"

You are smart enough to put together grammatical sentences (mostly).  Why don't you turn some of your intellect toward learning new things, and then come back and engage in a more informed, and therefore more interesting, discussion?

Again, you are quoting a source that almost everyone here has read (at least in this thread), and you are ignoring more recent sources.

It doesn’t matter how recent a theory or hypothesis is. What matters is if it is logically coherent and has good evidence.

You've made an assertion-- not that your view of the BBT is valid, but that most cosmologists believe it to be true.

That 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.

Your support for this sweeping assertion is that you've read or talked with "most cosmologists," an assertion which can only be false.

By saying something can only be false, you’re saying that it is necessarily false, but the statement, “I’ve read and talked to most cosmologists” is logically possible and therefore can be true. I think what you mean to say is it’s implausible.

The truth is that you've read at least one popular science book (written for laypeople) and one blog, both by Hawking, and have not demonstrated knowledge of any other writer, or of any challenges from other schools of thought, or of the proofs for or against them.

I’ve read numerous books and texts in physics, listened to talks and conferences for physicists, and I’ve taken college-level courses in physics.
But let me stop you right here. All you’ve done up until this point is commit the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem. It doesn’t matter what I’ve read or haven’t read. What matters is the arguments that I’ve presented. When are you going to get to those?

Alex has pretty specifically described how QM might inform modern views on the Big Bang

 
Quantum Mechanics doesn’t change the definition of a singularity nor does it state that the big bang is not a singularity. Nor does it state that the universe is past-eternal. Secondly, I don’t care what Alex says. I care what actual physicists say. More specifically, I care about the arguments and evidences presented by credible physicists (because there are also fringe/hack physicists).

and given a link for you to read.

Just because there’s a bit of information at the end of a link doesn’t mean the information is any good. I’ve read and looked at everything that has been "linked" to me. What link are you talking about specifically? The Sean Carroll video that talks about the multiverse that there is no evidence for? The article crying about William Lane Craig? Which link? Be specific.
 

You just keep crowing about how Hawking said it (true), and how the majority of cosmologists insist it's true (unproven and possibly false).

Yes, most cosmologists think the big bang is a singularity and they also agree with me that a singularity is a point of infinite space-time curvature, density, heat, etc.

There are thousands of papers, or at least abstracts of papers, thousands of blogs, thousands of threads in physics forums, and thousands or millions of videos about the Big Bang, about QM, and about a lot of things related to them.

Yeah, go read them and come back here. I’ll be waiting.

One last thing though. Two last things actually. Notice how you didn’t engage in any of my arguments? Yeah, I noticed it as well.

Hey Alex: I’m still waiting for evidence of your credentials. Hack.

[bennyboy]

That 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.

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

By saying something can only be false, you’re saying that it is necessarily false, but the statement, “I’ve read and talked to most cosmologists” is logically possible and therefore can be true. I think what you mean to say is it’s implausible.

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. . . "

I’ve read numerous books and texts in physics, listened to talks and conferences for physicists, and I’ve taken college-level courses in physics.
But let me stop you right here. All you’ve done up until this point is commit the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem. It doesn’t matter what I’ve read or haven’t read. What matters is the arguments that I’ve presented. When are you going to get to those?

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.

As for your appeal to the many, many books you've read, go ahead and list them. Then summarize what they've said that is relevant to your assertions in the OP, and explain why challenges to those theories may be safely discarded. Or just keeping saying your "Hawking. . . Hawking. . . Hawking!" mantra over and over again until we are all hypnotized by it. It's up to you.

Yeah, go read them and come back here. I’ll be waiting.

Read them yourself. I'm not asserting things about the positions of an entire field of scientists-- that's you. So support your assertion or keep rambling on about how you're right because Hawking. Why don't you google something like "is the universe past-eternal" and realize that there's a huge body of work out there, and then address at least some of that academic work in the fantastic revelation of Truth that is your OP?

One last thing though. Two last things actually. Notice how you didn’t engage in any of my arguments? Yeah, I noticed it as well.

Hey Alex: I’m still waiting for evidence of your credentials. Hack.

Since your ideas are not your own, then if I wanted to debate ideas about physics, I'd go to a physics forum, find someone with original ideas, and debate them instead. I'm just pointing out that your entire pissing-contest of a thread is really just you parroting about only one scientist, and you demonstrating a vast lack of knowledge of anything conceived in the last several decades. You can VERY easily rebut me by showing you DO know fucking anything about physics at all, and explaining why the many dozens of credible theories on cosmology should be discarded in favor of the one view you picked up from the back cover of a library book.

[Alex K]

@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.