Matter and energy can be past-eternal

[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